Smt. Shruti Nagpal vs Siddarth Sharma
2021 Latest Caselaw 8110 MP

                           1
               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            MP.No.4337/2021
        (Smt. Shruti Nagpal Vs. Siddarth Sharma & Others)

Gwalior Bench : Dated : 02.12.2021

      Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      The present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the

impugned order of the trial Court dated 18.11.2021, whereby the

application   under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC

preferred at the instance of the petitioner/defendant has been rejected.

Therefore, the defendants have occasion to file this petition. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs/respondents may

produce certain documents.

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that neither

particulars of the documents have been referred by the petitioner/

defendant in the application which are in the alleged possession of the

plaintiffs as per his reply nor the possession of documents have been

accepted by the plaintiffs. The petitioner/defendant relied upon the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri M.L.

Sethi Vs. Shri R.P. Kapur, 1972 (2) SCC 427 but said position of law

has been clarified in para 6 as under:

6. We think that the High Court was wrong in holding that since the application for discovery did not specify the documents sought to be discovered, the lower Court acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction in ordering discovery. Generally speaking, a party is entitled to

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP.No.4337/2021 (Smt. Shruti Nagpal Vs. Siddarth Sharma & Others)

inspection of all documents which do not themselves constitute exclusively the other party's evidence of his case or title. If a party wants inspection of documents in the possession of the opposite party, he cannot inspect them unless the other party produces them. The party wanting inspection must, therefore, call upon the opposite party to produce the document. And how can a party do this unless he knows what documents are in the possession or power of the opposite party ? In other words, unless the party seeking discovery knows what are the documents in the possession or custody of the opposite party which would throw light upon the question in controversy, how is it possible for him to ask for dis- covery of specific documents ? Order 11, rule 12 provides."

In view of the above, no case for interference is made out under

the limited jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Admission declined. Order of trial Court stands affirmed.

The petition is dismissed.

                                                             (Anand Pathak)
AK/-                                                             Judge
       ANAND KUMAR
       2021.12.03
       18:44:43 +05'30'