"The present application has been filed for the supply of documents under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC for directing the plaintiffs to produce the Passport of Late Sh.Ashok Khosla, his proof of Denmark citizenship, Adoption Deed dated 9.2.1980 and the copy of passports of plaintiff. In the reply the plaintiffs have taken the stand that Ashok Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.19 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Khosla was not adopted but real son of Sh.Manohar therefore, there is no such adoption deed ever made. The plaintiffs have further denied having possession of any other documents that is mentioned in the head note of the application. As far as the adoption deed is concerned, the plaintiff is denying the very existence of the same, therefore, there arises no occasion to compel them to produce the documents which they allege does not exist. As far as the other documents are concerned, they have categorically denied that they are in possession of these documents. Accordingly the court is of the considered opinion that if a parties denies that they are in possession of certain documents then they cannot be compelled to produce the same. Moreover, as per order 11 Rule 14 of CPC only those documents can be allowed to be produced which are in the "possession or power" of the person. In the present case, as the plaintiffs have mentioned that these documents are not in their possession so, therefore, they cannot be compelled to produce the same. Accordingly, application filed by the applicant is dismissed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
In The High Court Of Punjab And ... vs Veena Khosla & Ors on 14 March, 2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
The contour of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, respondent Nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs Mrs. Veena Khosla wife of late Ashok Khosla & others (for brevity "the plaintiffs"), have instituted the civil suit (Annexure P1), against petitioner- defendant No.6 Kiran Behal wife of Deepak Behal and proforma respondent Nos.4 to 8, other defendants (for short "the defendants"), for a decree of declaration and partition to the effect that they (plaintiffs) are entitled to 1/7th share each in the house in dispute, being the legal heirs of late Ashok Khosla s/o Manohar Singh Khosla. The defendants contested their claim, filed the written statement (Annexure P2), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
2. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have moved an application (Annexure P3) for directing the plaintiffs to produce the passport of late Ashok Khosla, his proof of citizenship of Denmark and adoption deed dated 9.12.1980, whereby he was adopted by the citizen of Denmark etc. under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC. The plaintiffs Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.19 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh have refuted their prayer, filed the reply (Annexure P4), strongly denied the allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal.
3. Taking into consideration the facts and entire material on record, the trial Court dismissed the application (Annexure P3) of the pointed defendants, by means of impugned order dated 25.2.2014 (Annexure P5).
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-defendant No.6 has preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this regard.
6. Ex facie the argument of learned counsel that since the documents in question would be relevant for just decision of the case, so, the trial Court committed the legal mistake to dismiss the application (Annexure P3) of defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 to produce the indicated documents, is neither tenable nor the observations of Rajasthan High Court in case M/s Paras Drugs and Chemical Industries and others v. UCO Bank and others 2001(3) Civil Court Cases 214 are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, it was observed that if the documents relevant for deciding the suit are in possession & power of a party, then the Court can order the production of such documents. There can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the instant controversy, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.
Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.19 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
7. As is evident from the record that initially, the plaintiffs have filed the civil suit (Annexure P1), against the defendants for a decree of declaration & partition of the house in litigation in the manner depicted here-in-above. The defendants No.1, 2, 4 and 5 have now moved an application (Annexure P3) for direction to plaintiffs to produce the documents in question, pertaining to late Ashok Khosla s/o Manohar Singh Khosla. The plaintiffs have stoutly denied the existence of adoption deed and claimed that Ashok Khosla was neither adopted, by way of citizenship of Denmark nor such adoption deed was executed and that other documents were not in their possession/power. The contention of learned counsel that as Ashok Khosla was adopted by some citizen of Denmark, therefore, the adoption deed is essential for just decision of the case, lacks merit as well. The defendants have not mentioned that who had adopted him. Moreover, the proof of citizenship of Denmark and passports etc. of late Ashok Khosla cannot be said to be in possession of the plaintiffs. In case, the defendants intend to prove the alleged adoption, then, they would be at liberty to produce their own evidence in this regard. Be that as it may, in any case, the plaintiffs can neither legally be directed to prove the case of defendants, nor they can be compelled to produce non-existent adoption deed or the passport of late Ashok Khosla, which were not in their possession, in the garb of application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC.
8. Therefore, the trial Court has correctly dismissed the pointed application (Annexure P3) of the defendants, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P5), which, in substance, is as under (para 5) :-
"The present application has been filed for the supply of documents under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC for directing the plaintiffs to produce the Passport of Late Sh.Ashok Khosla, his proof of Denmark citizenship, Adoption Deed dated 9.2.1980 and the copy of passports of plaintiff. In the reply the plaintiffs have taken the stand that Ashok Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.19 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Khosla was not adopted but real son of Sh.Manohar therefore, there is no such adoption deed ever made. The plaintiffs have further denied having possession of any other documents that is mentioned in the head note of the application. As far as the adoption deed is concerned, the plaintiff is denying the very existence of the same, therefore, there arises no occasion to compel them to produce the documents which they allege does not exist. As far as the other documents are concerned, they have categorically denied that they are in possession of these documents. Accordingly the court is of the considered opinion that if a parties denies that they are in possession of certain documents then they cannot be compelled to produce the same. Moreover, as per order 11 Rule 14 of CPC only those documents can be allowed to be produced which are in the "possession or power" of the person. In the present case, as the plaintiffs have mentioned that these documents are not in their possession so, therefore, they cannot be compelled to produce the same. Accordingly, application filed by the applicant is dismissed. Now the case is adjourned to 5.3.2014 for cross examination of witness of plaintiff."
9. Meaning thereby, the trial court has examined the matter in right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this regard. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with, in the exercise of superintendence power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, so, the impugned order (Annexure P5) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner-defendant No.6 is hereby dismissed as such.
Sd/-
No comments:
Post a Comment