AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod. K. Sharma, J.—The petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 5.5.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana declining the application moved by the petitioners for production of documents.
The petitioners filed a suit for declaration, that firm M/s Shobha Knitting Works Stood dissolved on 2.9.2005 on the death of Kewal Krishan Gulati. The plaintiffs/petitioners also claimed the relief of rendition of accounts, and for partition of moveable and immovable properties of the firm. The petitioners prayed for separate possession by partition, of half share of the property.
It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs/petitioners are not partners of the firm, and are claiming their right of inheritance from Kewal Krishan Gulati who was a partner with the defendant/respondent in the firm.
In the written statement the respondent/defendant took a specific plea, that under a Will executed in his favour the property held by late Kewal Krishan stood bequeathed to him.
After the filing of the written statement an application was moved by the plaintiffs/petitioners, for production of the partnership deeds, complete balance sheets, original will, Ledger of M/s Shobha Kinitting Works Rani Gulati, Income tax returns and balance-sheets of M/s Kewal Krishan Gulati and sons from 1998-99 till date, in the court so as to effectively file replication to the written statement.
The application was contested, wherein a specific stand was taken that all the relevant documents concerning the case have already been filed and photo copies placed on record were fully legible It was also pleaded, that the some of the record claimed by the petitioners/applicants were not relevant and that the application was vague, as no details were given about the title deeds sought to be produced. Income tax return claimed was said to be totally irrelevant.
Learned trial court did not find any merit in the application, as the suit was for declaration to the effect that firm M/s Shobha Knitting Works Stood dissolved on 2.9.2005, on the death of Kewal Krishan Gulati, for rendition of accounts and partition of moveable and immovable properties of the firm along with separate possession.
It is also not in dispute that defendant/respondent attached 23 documents with his written statement including the photo copies of the ceremonies, copy of death certificate of Rajinder Singh, copy of Will of Kewal Krishan, copies of" balance-sheets, copies of sale deeds, copy of passport, death certificate etc. All the documents were found to be legible on bare perusal. The learned trial court was of the view that there was no necessity to produce original documents, as the case was at preliminary stage as the stay application was yet to be disposed of.
The learned trial court held, that as the plaintiffs were to stand on their own legs, and could not be allowed to make a fishing inquiry qua the property or the assets of the defendant by moving the application.
The learned trial court further held that all the documents already stood filed. It was also observed that in case the court finds the necessity of the original documents at later stage then the same can be called from the defendant at appropriate stage.
Mr. Amit Rawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently contended that the learned trial court failed to notice that the defendant/respondent had denied the prayer made for production of the documents by terming them to be irrelevant. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also contended that by non-production of the original there was chance of tampering with the original documents or to claim to prove these photocopies by way of secondary evidence.
It was also the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that under Order 8 Rule 1-A of the CPC (for short the Code) it was the duty of the defendant to produce documents cm the basis of which he seeks relief from the court. Reference was also made to provisions of Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code to contend that original was required to be placed on the file of the suit.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of these contentions placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of K.S. Raina and Anr. v. Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 129, wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down as under:
The principles laid down by the Supreme Court when applied to the facts of the present case, no doubt is left that the documents which are within the power, possession and custody of defendant/respondent No. 1 must be produced before the Court and opportunity to inspect those documents should be given to the plaintiff/petitioners so as to enable them to make their submissions for proper adjudication of the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. It is rightly said that sun light is the best antiseptic and the cover plunges the doer in darkness.
On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
The application moved by the petitioners was prima facie misconceived. The learned trial court rightly observed that the petitioners have sought production of documents only to file replication to the written statement when it is not in dispute that all the relevant documents were filed by the defendant along with his written statement by placing on record the fully legible photocopies, Mere apprehension of the petitioners of likelihood of tampering with the original documents, and their non-production at later stage could not be a ground to direct the defendants to produce the original on file. No party can be directed to produce the documents which are not relevant and asked for by way of fishing inquiry, in view of settled law that no fishing inquiry is permissible.
Reading of Order 8 Rule 1-A on which reliance has been placed shows that the documents required to be produced by the defendant are the one on which the defendant places reliance. The provision of law relied upon by the learned Counsel does not entitle the plaintiff to seek a direction to the defendants to file the documents on which defendant has not relied upon in support of his defence or counter claim. The reliance of the learned Counsel for the petitioners on Order 8 Rule 1-A is totally misconceived.
Similarly, reliance on Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also misconceived, as under Rule 14 of Order XI it is for the court to call for any document in the possession or power relating to any matter in dispute in a suit, as the court thinks right. It is, thus, for the court to deal with the said document. This presumption does not in any way empower the petitioners to direct the opposite party to produce the documents, so as to enable them to prepare their defence, though documents relied upon by the defendant in his support are already filed.
Reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of K.S. Raina and Anr. v. Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. (supra) by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is also misplaced as this Court in the case of K.S.Raina and Anr. v. Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. (supra) was dealing with the question of transparency to be shown by the agencies of the State. It was held by this Court that the documents which are within the power, possession and custody of the State agency were required to be produced in court so as to give opportunity to inspect to other parties for proper adjudication of the case. This judgment cannot be read, to mean that a party can be directed to produce the documents on which reliance is not placed so as to help the opposite party to make fishing inquiry.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners if accepted would go contrary to well established principle of law that plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and prove his case in accordance with law. No party can be allowed to make fishing inquiry. Even otherwise, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by way of impugned order, as the learned court rightly observed that in case any document is required by the court at later stage, it can be called for.
Order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, does not suffer from any error or irregularity which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
No merit.
Dismissed.