286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-1182-2022 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 17.02.2023

Bachan Kaur @ Manjit Kaur

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Kuldip Kaur @ Marina Jayne Squires and Another

….Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1.

-.-

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

The challenge in the present revision petition under Article 227

of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 vide

which the application filed by defendant No.1-petitioner under Order 11

Rule 14 CPC for production of the documents has been disposed off.

The grievance of the defendant No.1-petitioner in the present

case is that there are certain documents at Sr. Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 in

possession of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and that she has refused to

produce the same.

Learned counsel for defendant No.1-petitioner has relied upon

Union of India Vs. M/s Kanhiya Dhaliwal Developers & Others [CR

No.3868 of 2015 decided on 18.12.2015], Onkar Singh Vs. Ravinder

Malhotra [2013 (36) RCR (Civil) 684], Desa Singh through LRs Vs.

Sukhraj Kaur & Ors. [2019 (2) PLR 715], Sharvan Kumar Vs. Sumeet

TRIPTI SAINI

2023.02.20 10:15

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-1182-2022 (O&M)

-2-

Kumar Garg [2002 (3) PLR 666], The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. &

Ors. Vs. Prop. Ajit Cotton Ginning Pressing Dall & Steel Rolling Mills

[2013 (1) RCR (Civil) 506] to contend that while deciding an application

under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, the Court has to record its satisfaction

regarding the necessity and relevance of the documents.

Per Contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1

has contended that the Trial Court vide the impugned order dated

26.10.2021 has already noticed that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was

restrained from placing on record documents mentioned at Point Nos.2, 3,

5, 6 and 7 without prior permission of the Court and hence there is no

ground for interference in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for

the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has relied upon Zari Bai Vs. Smt. Sonia &

Ors. [2018 (2) PLR 659], Surjit Kaur & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana &

Ors. [2016 (4) Law Herald 3550] and Municipal Corporation,

Faridabad & Anr. Vs. Dharambir & Ors. [2013 (26) RCR (Civil) 923].

Heard.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

respondent No.1 filed a suit with the following prayers :

“Suit

for

Declaration

to the

effect

that

the

judgment/decree passed by this Court of Ms. Amandeep

Kaur Chauhan, PCS, Civil Judge Junior Division,

Gurdaspur, bearing Civil Suit No.540 of 2007 dated

14.12.2007, titled as “Bachan Kaur @ Manjit Kaur Vs.

General Public” decided on dated 03.12.2011, is

illegal, null, void and result of fraud concealment of

TRIPTI SAINI

2023.02.20 10:15

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-1182-2022 (O&M)

-3-

true facts and has no effects upon the legal rights, title,

interest of the plaintiff, and the same is liable to be set

aside.

And

Suit for permanent injunction for restraining the

defendant No.1 Bachan Kaur @ Manjit Kaur not to use

the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.12.2011

passed in civil suit No.510 of 2007 titled as “Bachan

Kaur @ Manjit Kaur Vs. General Public” by the

Hon’ble Court of Ms. Amandeep Kaur, PCS, Civil

Judge, Junior Division, Gurdaspur and restraining the

defendant No.1 not to alienate the property inherited by

her of the estate of Pyara Singh (now deceased) on the

basis of judgment decree dated 03.12.2011 in

question.”

The plaintiff-respondent No.1 claimed herself to being the

widow and legal heir of Pyara Singh and that defendant No.1-petitioner by

playing fraud with the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and