Sunder v. Mohd- Ismai/)

Af S!|_ty. Slo. Sri Bala Krishna Setty, aged.65 years, Occ. Service, Rio. B/57, Sanjeev Reddy Nagar, Hideiabad P.tlrfl,.ng Rqg, S1o Ramaiah, aged. 64 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H No.4-80-72, Qutti Bowti, Hyderabid Smt. B.Salamma Wo. B Satti reddy, aged.44 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H No.2-28, Pocharam Village, Gatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District P.S"flqgrq Reddy, S/o. B Satti Reddy, Aged 35 years, Occ. Business, Rio. H No.2-28, Pocharam Vitlage, G;tkeaar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict Sub Registrar, Uppal Ranga Reddy District Sub Registrar, Gatkesar Ranga Reddy District Sub Registrar, Narapally Ranga Reddy District lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 'l 51 of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in o.s No.1396 of 2o2i on the file o-f the Hon'ble ll Additional senior civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri. ... Respondents '/ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHEELAM ASHOK REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRt M PURUSHOTFTTMA CHARyULU The Court made the following: ORDER ' ,l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISI ON PETITIO N No.2524 of2023 ORDER: The prcsent Civil Rcvision petition is preferred against thc order dated I1.08.2023 in l.A. No. 570 of 2023 in O.S. No. 1396 of 2022 passcd by rhe II Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Medchal Malkajgiri.

2. The petitioner hcrein filcd the subjcct suit for declaration of title consequential rccovcry ol possession and consequential canccllation of resisrered sale deed bearing No.3644 of 1993, agrecment of sale-cum-(iPA bearing No.15732 of 2006 and sale deed bearing No. 3464 of2008, as plaintiffvide O.S. No. 1396 (old No. I 889 of 2012) of 2021 under Order VII Rule 1 to 6 r/w Section 26 Civil Procedure Code (fbr short ,CpC,).

3. 'lhe petitioner herein had lilcd the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No 570 of 202i in the subject suit seeking to summon the respondent No. I as witncss to produce Original pan Card. The said application was tiled on the ground that in order to I J \ -I -*-r1 \r 2 idcntift the respondent No.l/delcndant No. I signatt r.: lor elfectivc adjudication o['the case.

4. The trial Court dismisscd the undcrlying interlocutory application holding that, calling the respondent r rr. I /def-endant No.l to produce the said documcnt by itsclt'u'oulJ not rcsult in petitioner substantiating his casc as he lailed to slrr *. reasonablc and satisfactory ground to consider his plea at tht r rge of'cross- examination of DW- I

5. Further, thc trial Court obscrved that, althoueh hc petitioncr claimed to have become aware ol the orieinal I'}\N Card ol' respondent No. I idcf'endant No. I bearing his signattrrc in thc plaint. he did not disclosc as to how hc obtained acccss to t tc photocopy of the said document. T'he petitioner also failcd u providc any cogent reasons for the relevance of sunrmonir r rcspondent No.l/defendant No.l at the stage ol cross-cxaminat io n of DW-l

6. Accordingly, the trial Court held that th -' respondent No.l/defendant No. I cannot bc callcd for to pro,J rce the said documenj.and thc same was not neccssary lor thc rrl r.rdication of' thc maftcr 3

7. Aggrieved by rhe abovc said ordcr dated 11.0g.2023 the petitioner herein has prefened the present Civil Revision petition.

8. Heard leamed counsel for thc petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused thc record.

9. In the present case, thc petit ioncr/plaintiff contend that the impugned order is contrary to law and the trial Court failed to consider the scope and object ol'the certified cop1, and did not exercise its jurisdiction in considering the bona fides of thc application in the suit, despite it bcing neccssary and relevant documenl to substantiatc the suit; that he is entitted and has right to seek document lrom respondcnt No. lidclLndant No. l, hence, the trial Court has ample powcr to summon the respondent No.l/defendant No. I to produce thc said document for the effective adjudication of the suit.

10. Per Contra, the respondents conrcnd that the petitioner/plaintiff herein filed the petition under Ordcr XVI Rute 6 CPC only to protract the suit proceedings at the stage of cross-examination of DW-1, and further there is no avermcnt in the plaint in rcspect of the said document which is now sought to be summoned by the \--r -I 4 petitioncr hcrein. Therefore, thc application l'lcd b1' the petitioner/p laintiff is devoid of mcrit and liable to bc t isrnissed. ll. I have taken note of the respective contentions trrl,:d.

12. In thc lacts at hand, the petitioner herein is seekirrg production of Original PAN Card by respondent No.l 'dcfcrr"ant No. I kr identily thc signature available therein. Hou'ever. it ; t() l)r: noted that the pctitioner herein failed to establish by cogt r t rcasons the need fbr thc trial Court to summon the respondent i.l I l/clcf'cndant No. I at thc stage of cross-examination.

13. Ordcr XVI Rule 6 CPC authorizes the Cou( t() summon anv person 10 produce a document without being sumrt..rtrc<l to give evidence. I'hc discretion vesting with the Court rr o.t d hitve to he exercised judiciously.

14.It is to bc noted that the Court whilc dealing vvith I n anplication filed under Order XVI, Rule 6 of the CPC is rec;L i cd to satisfv itself that the application was a bona fide one and t t t rt vcxal ious one granting of which would result in abuse of I occss of the Coun. 'l'hc Clourt in exercise of its inherent jurisdictr,rn is crrtitled to take all the relevant lacts and circumstances and rl it is satisfled 5 that the application has been filed only ro protract the proceedings and the ordering of which may result in serious iniustice, is entitled to dismiss the application. A plain reading of Order XVI, Rute 6 does not suggest that the application is requirccl to be ordered automatically without considering the bona fides of the application (See: Sunder v. Mohd- Ismai/)

15. In the facts of the case the petitioner/ptaintifT hercin did not produce any evidence in order to esrablish the bona Jides of the petition requiring the trial Court to summon respondent No.l/defendant No.1 to prove the document in question. Further, the production of the document in question does not prima facie advance the case of the pctitioner thus; it cannot be deatt summarily in an application under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC.

16. Further, as per Order X\rI Rule 6 ol CPC, a person summoned solely for the production of a document, and not lor giving evidence, is permitted to produce the document without appearing in person. Such production is deemed sulficient compliance with the surnmons issued by the Court fbr the production of the 'lzoo+1 : rr-o : rt 6 document, and nothing further is required' Morcovt r' thcre is no provision which compels the trial Court to order tn application automatically and summon the document whenever sought lor by any Party.

17. Thc petitioner herein merely by summoning he respondent No. 1/tlefcndant No.1 to identiff the signature does n 't' in itsel[' aid the pctitioner's case, as the respondent No'l/defendart No l cannot produce the said document as the petitioner/plaint i I herein lailcd to satisfactorily state the reasons' 18. The Flon'ble Supreme Court in Govindhttli Chhotabhai Patel v. Patel Ramanhhai Mathurbhal, has hetd as under:

28. 'the High Court hekl that the appellants hatt not led any evitlence thoir ,igroture of rheir frtther on rhe gift dee I t as forged as neither lhe .specimen signature nor writings of thci' tuther 'for tht purpn,r" of ,o^paring lhe disputed signature on tltt :ifi deed hu"-c been attempted- There is no report of an erper in re\Pecl of stgrutltrres of the donor on the gift tleed nor ony r('tl est u'as mode for sending the document lo lhe Forensic Science tt borotory' Thc "High Court [Patel Ramanbhai Mathurhhai r Govindbhai (:ihotabhai Patel, 2018 SCC Online Guj 47631 ltld us under: (Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai case [Patel Ramanhh i Mathurhhai v. Govirulbhai Chhotabhai Patet, 2018 SCC Ottl'i'r {iuj 17631 SCC OnLine Gti Para 68) "68 lhe plaintiffs have miserablv l'ail \t lo Droye anv 'utlure o lheir rlen is on them hat the st then the h'rt is the case o the [n 1y view Iainti ST o deed is ther'in the dis. '(to:o) t6 sc(: :-;5 ,/ 1 to establish and prove bv leading coeent evidance that the sig!Jg!l!!g is forged bv another. A mere doubt or asserlion or un allegation of forsery by itself is not suflicienl to even prima /hcie drmv an inference of froud. -...The olaintiffs could have nroduced the specimen siqnature or wrilin4s oftheir father, ifany, for the puryxtse ol comparinc the disputed sisnalure on the pift deed. The trial courl could hcne been asked to seek an opinion o{ an expert in this regard bv sendinq the document b lhe Forensic Science Laborotorv Nothing of this sorl wos done. All that has been asserled in the evidence is that the father had no good reC!;OI lLefflrl@ lhC Eil deed in favour of the defendant, more particularly, when the sons were taking good care oftheir father. This hardly could be termed as evidence with resard to fraud or forseru. The nlaintiffs have nol even pleaded or deposed that their father was illiterate ttnd vtas nol able to pul hi.s .signature IJ the evidenct on reutrd is looked into. then the plaintilfs have in substance just expressed doubt.s a.s regurds the signature oftheirfathir. "

19. Further, where the genuineness of signature is disputcd, thc pctitioner ought to have sought forensic examination rather than relying solely on the Original PAN Card ol- the respondent No.l/defendant No.1; that such failure to prove thc authenticity of the alleged document, the respondent No.l/defendant No. I cannot I t be summoned to produce the documents /

20. In lighi of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly held that summoning the respondent No.l/defendant No. I cannot be made in the present petition on the account of showing reasonable grounds Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the -- \ '-r '.: r.,l 8 impugned order in exercise of its supervisory juri:;rLiction undcr Article 227 of the Constitution oflndia.

21. For the above-mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the order ol the trial Court does not suffer from i ry infirmit), or elTor

22. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is de,, rid of merit and is dismissed. 'l'he order dated 11.0g.2023 in I.,,\ No. 570 I 2023 in O.S No. 1396 of 2022 is sustained. No order i s ro costs. Consequently, misccllaneous petitions pending I an1, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. \ //TRUE COPY// \ ,,it"r?,y8g&ittHi'A \ $:cTIoN oFFICER To, 1 The ll Additional Senior < 9ne cc to sri sheetam f1vlt-'lulse naedchal Malkajgiri Dist ict ? 9n" cc i; s;;M ffiu:-'l?l Reddv' Advocate [oPUc] 4. Two cD co;ies " -' 'st toIhEIIl? charyulu, Aovocate loeur) ABK/PSL /- , '.t t, 2 E il0ll ff,l 9eso qt[tr. :::-;r; t )' Z a "1.a. HIGH COURT DATED: 11t0t\ZO2S ORDER CRP.No.2524 of 2023 DISMISSING THE CRP tl u