Amitap Shrivasatava vs Smt. Laxmi Shrivastava (Ramteke)
2021 Latest Caselaw 1868 Chatt

                                                                            NAFR


             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           W.P.(227) No.973 of 2019

      Amitap Shrivasatava S/o Late V.P. Shrivastava A/a 49 Years, R/o Club
       Chowk Near Shitala Mandir, Ward No. 43, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon,
       Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

                                                                    ---- Petitioner

                                     Versus

   1. Smt. Laxmi Shrivastava (Ramteke) W/o Amiptap Shrivastava Aged
       About 46 Years Working As Zila Nazir, District And Sessions Court
       Janjgir, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh
   2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

                                                               ---- Respondents

For Petitioner                    - Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate.

For State/respondent No.01        - Mr. Parasmani Shriwas, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board

19-08-2021

Heard.

1. This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated

13.11.2019, passed in Civil Suit No.16-A/2017, by which the application

of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XI Rule 12 of C.P.C. was

dismissed.

2. The petitioner has filed a Civil Suit praying for relief of declaration and

permanent injunction against the respondents. It is pleaded in the plaint

that the petitioner/plaintiff has purchased the suit property from his own

financial resources in the name of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1

being a Government servant, did not have the financial resources to

make such purchase, on that basis, the declaration is sought that the

petitioner is the actual purchaser and title holder of the suit property.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis

of the pleadings, the application filed under Order XI Rule 12 of C.P.C.

praying for the direction of the Court to respondent No.1 to file

documents regarding her appointment and service and also regarding

her salary statement. It is submitted further that the learned trial Court

has erroneously dismissed the application without application outlined.

4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the

case of Kamaljeet Gupta vs Fresernius Kabi Oncology Ltd. reported in

AIROnline 2019 Cal 69, in which it is held that "before determining the

objection of the party is obliged to disclose a document on oath or not

two tests should be applied (i) whether the said document is relevant or

not: (ii) whether it is in possession, custody or power of the party against

whom the application is filed or not."

5. It is further submitted that there was no reason to dismiss the

application. The application was dismissed arbitrarily and erroneously.

Hence, the petition may be allowed and impugned order may be set

aside and relief be granted to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made

in this respect and submits that the learned trial Court has not

committed any error in passing the impugned order. It is the burden of

the petitioner/plaintiff to prove that the respondent did not have any

resource to make purchase of the suit property. It is the claim of the

respondent No.1 that she has purchased the suit property from her own

resources, therefore, the petition is unsustainable, which may be

dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

present on record.

8. Considered on the submissions. There is no denial that the respondent

No.1 is a clerical staff employed in the Court of District and Sessions

Judge, Janjgir-Champa. The learned trial Court has held in the

impugned order that the petitioner has option to call the accountant of

the District Court, Janjgir-Champa as witness to prove the salaried

income of the respondent no.1 and if the petitioner choses to have this

option, then the salaried income of the respondent No.1 can be

produced and proved in the Court. The documents required to be

discovered final confidentiality, however, by the orders of the Court, the

same can be produced in the Court by the concerned department.

Further, it is also held, that the existence of the documents produced is

not in question and method of proving the same is already suggested in

the impugned order, hence, for these reasons, I am of this view that the

learned trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the

application of the petitioner, it is found that there is no substance in the

petition, which is dismissed.

9. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed off.

Sd/-

Monika                                      (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
                                                          Judge