Civil Case No. 9 of 1974 · High Court · 2025

6. Pet it ioner filed anot her applicat ion under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC. Bot h filed by pet it ioner, were applicat ions, rej ect ed by learned t rial court vide order dat ed 17.10.2024. Pet it ioner t hereaft er filed Civil Revision No. 94 of 2024, which was dism issed by learned 1 st Addit ional Dist rict Judge, Kashipur, Dist rict Udham j udgm ent dat ed Singh Nagar feeling aggrieved 08.01.2025. Thus, pet it ioner has t his writ pet it ion, challenging t he order passed by learned t rial court , as affirm ed by learned Revisional Court .

7. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for t he pet it ioner has t he order confined his challenge passed by t rial court , as affirm ed by revisional court , only qua rej ect ion of pet it ioner ’s applicat ion under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC and he did not m ake any t o subm ission applicat ion filed Under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC. rej ect ion against t he t he suit is aware

8. Perusal of t rial court ’s order reveals ( respondent t hat plaint iff herein) filed obj ect ion t o t he applicat ions filed by pet it ioner cont ending t hat t he applicat ions are filed wit h t he sole m ot ive suit ; of delaying disposal of defendant ( pet it ioner herein) was part y t o Civil Suit No. 09 of 1974, which was decided by Dist rict Judge, Kum aon, Nainit al and he t hat all docum ent s, including perm ission given by Advocat e General, are part of record of Civil Suit No. 09 of 1974; t here is no deed execut ed by Mr. Raj a Udai Raj Singh for allot t ing t he land in quest ion, is no quest ion of t here t herefore, producing t he deed, which exist ence at all; defendant ( pet it ioner herein) has sought product ion of Khasra of plot num bers 404, 407, 410 & 650 defendant can obt ain copy t hereof from Revenue Aut horit ies and produce before t he Court , and plaint iff does not have copy of t he docum ent s, copies whereof were sought by defendant . docum ent s is not public st at ed furt her I t was

9. t he obj ect ion t hat in t he order passed in Civil Suit No. 09 of 1974, not only t he old plot num bers of t he propert y in quest ion are indicat ed, but t heir corresponding new num bers are also given. I t was furt her st at ed t hat pet it ioner has request ed for copy of cert ain revenue records, which can be produced by him as revenue records, are public docum ent , which can be obt ained by anyone. Respondent furt her cont ended t hat t he docum ent s, product ion whereof was sought by t he pet it ioner, are neit her necessary for deciding t he suit . relevant nor rej ect ed t he t rial court 10. Learned applicat ion filed under Order 11 Rule 14 t here does not CPC by holding t hat j ust ificat ion t o be any appear product ion of docum ent s as m ent ioned in t he applicat ion filed by t he pet it ioner.

11. The applicat ion filed under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC was also rej ect ed by learned t rial court vide order dat ed 17.10.2024 on t he ground t hat t he said applicat ion cannot be allowed at a belat ed st age as plaint iff’s wit ness have been cross- exam ined t he defendant wit nesses are t o be exam ined. defendant by Advocat e General

12. Learned revisional court affirm ed t he order passed by t rial court by holding t hat since pet it ioner was part y t o Original Suit No. 09 of 1974, t herefore, he t he perm ission him self can produce grant ed inst it ut ing suit under Sect ion 92 CPC. As regards product ion of revenue records, learned t hat revenue records are public docum ent s, which pet it ioner him self can obt ain and produce; Chairm an of Dharam shala, was cross- exam ined by pet it ioner and now t he m at t er is fixed for exam inat ion of defendant ’s wit nesses, t he applicat ion for discovery by int errogat ory cannot be allowed at t his belat ed st age. t herefore, revisional

13. Order 11 Rule 14 CPC is ext ract ed below: - “ Or d e r 1 1 Ru l e 1 4 . Pr o d u ct i o n o f d o cu m e n t s- I t shall be lawful for t he Court , at any t im e during t he pendency of any suit , t o order t he product ion by any part y t her et o, upon oat h of such of t he docum ent s in his possession or pow er, relat ing t o any m at t er in quest ion in such suit , as t he Court shall t hink right ; and t he Court m ay deal wit h such docum ent s, when produced, in such m anner as shall appear j ust .”

14. The provision cont ained in Order 11 Rule 14 CPC is in t he nat ure of enabling t he Court provision, which em powers irrespect ive of t he st age of t he suit t o order any party whet her plaint iff or defendant , t o produce any docum ent as it t hinks fit for proper adj udicat ion of t he issues. No order should be m ade against a part y under t his provision unless he has direct ly or indirect ly adm it t ed t he docum ent t o be in his possession or power. Exercise of power under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC subj ect t o t wo condit ions being sat isfied t he docum ent s, product ion viz. whereof is sought for, m ust be in t he possession or power of t he part y against whom t he direct ion is sought for and ( ii) t he docum ent s m ust t he cont roversy involved in t he suit . is discret ionary and relat e ( i) t o

15. Under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, t he Court , at any t im e during t he pendency of a suit , has t he discret ion t o order any part y t o produce docum ent s relevant t o t he case. This power can be exercised eit her suo m ot u, or upon applicat ion by a part y t o t he suit . Thus, Court can order for product ion of such docum ent s, which are relevant for deciding t he issues.

16. The Court does not aut om at ically order product ion m erely because a docum ent is request ed. The Court has t o evaluat e request ed docum ent s are relevant t o t he issue in t he suit . Rule 14 of Order 11 CPC is not whet her t he int ended t o allow part ies t o engage in a fishing expedit ion t o discover unknown docum ent s. The part y seeking product ion m ust have som e reason t o believe t hat t he docum ent s exist and are relevant .

17. Learned t rial court has considered all relevant aspect s while passing t he order dat ed 17.10.2024 and had rej ect ed t he applicat ion filed by pet it ioner under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC by holding t hat all t he docum ent s, copy whereof is sought by t he pet it ioner, were part of record of Civil Suit No. 09 of 1974 in which pet it ioner was also a part y. Learned t rial court t ook not e of t he st and t aken by plaint iff ( respondent herein) t hat he does not have copy of t he docum ent s sought for by t he pet it ioner for rej ect ing t he applicat ion. Learned t rial court furt her observed t hat Khat a Khaut ani and ot her revenue records are public docum ent s which can be obt ained by t he pet it ioner.

18. The order passed by learned t rial court cannot be fault ed. The plaint iff respondent denied t hat t he docum ent s sought by t he defendant pet it ioner are in his possession or power, t herefore, one for exercise of power under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, was m issing. t he pre- condit ions, t he pet it ioner ’s rej ect ing 19. While applicat ion under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, learned t rial court has observed t hat t he prayer for product ion of docum ent s m ade unj ust ified, as Civil Suit No. 09 of 1974 was decided by learned Dist rict Judge, Kum aon, Nainit al on m erit s and t he j udgm ent rendered in t he said civil suit is st ill effect ive. pet it ioner appears t o concurs wit h t he 20. This Court reasoning given by learned t rial court . The request for product ion of docum ent s m ust not be fanciful but t he docum ent s m ust relat e t o t he cont roversy involved in t he suit . The observat ion m ade by learned t rial court reveals t hat t he court t he concerned was of docum ent s relevant t o t he case. Since order 11 Rule 14 CPC is an enabling provision which em powers t he Court t o direct a part y t o produce any docum ent and it does not creat e any right in favour of a part y, t herefore, t he power given by said provision has t o be exercised wit hin t he param et ers set- out in t he provision it self. t hat request ed t he view rej ect ing

21. Since t he condit ion precedent for exercise of t hat power was not present , t herefore, learned t rial court was j ust ified t he prayer m ade by pet it ioner for product ion of docum ent . The revisional court was, t herefore, right in not int erfering wit h t rial court ’s order. Any int erference wit h t he order passed by t rial court , as affirm ed by revisional court , in exercise of supervisory powers under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion would be unwarrant ed.

22. Thus, t he writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J)

14.08.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726 FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL