Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Kumar Patel vs Shirish Kishore Sharma on 29 May, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1 MP-2874-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 29 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 2874 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. MAHENDRA KUMAR PATEL S/O LATE SHRI HAR
PRASAD PATEL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O
PURANI BASTI MAHARAJPUR DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANOJ KUMAR PATEL S/O LATE SHREE HAR
PRASAD PATEL R/O PURANI BASTI MAHARAJPUR
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ASHOK LALWANI - ADVOCATE)
AND
SHIRISH KISHORE SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI V K
SHARM A R/O 2085 SHITALAMAI WARD BEHIND DR.
BHATNAGAR HOSPITAL GHAMAPUR DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 13.04.2024 passed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in dismissing the application filed under Order 11 Rule
14 of Code of Civil Procedure, the present petition has been filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent/plaintiff preferred a civil
suit for declaration, partition and injunction with respect to the land bearing
Khasra No.255/2 admeasuring 2.168 hectare, Patwari Halka No.17/60 situated at
2 MP-2874-2024
Maharajpur, Jabalpur on the basis of 6D agreement executed between the
petitioners and respondent. During the pendency of the civil suit, the petitioners
preferred an application under Order 11 Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure for
production of certain documents.
3. The respondents filed its reply to the above application and thereafter the
application was rejected by the learned Trial Court. It is argued that the rejection
order is per se illegal as the petitioners are having every right to know about the
documents on the basis of which the civil suit has been filed. It is further argued
that the reply submitted to the application was not supported by any affidavit,
therefore, the same could not have been taken note of. He has placed reliance
upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Narendra S/o Chhotelal Gole Vs. Ram Krishna Sharma reported in
2011(1) MPLJ 127 and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Shri M.L.Sethi Vs. Shri R.P.Kapur reported in AIR 1972 SC
2379.
4. After going through the record, it is seen that the learned Trial Court has
rejected the application on the ground that the documents though sought by the
petitioners to be placed before the learned Trial Court are the registered sale-
deeds in which the petitioners are not party. The statement of Bank Account of
a firm which is not relevant, even then the respondent herein has assured that the
same if required will be placed before the Trial Court at the time of evidence.
5. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is being relied upon by
the petitioners is with respect to Order 11 Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure
which deals with the discovery of documents. In the present case, there is no
such new documents which are being discovered. The documents which are
3 MP-2874-2024
being sought to be produced before the Trial Court are the Bank statements of
the firm, the registered sale-deeds wherein the petitioners are not even a party to
the proceedings. He has to show the relevance of those documents with respect
to the civil suit. In the present case, even the written statement has not been
filed. The matter is for consideration of an application under Order 39 Rule 1
and 2 of CPC. The petitioners have already filed an application under Order 7
Rule 11 of CPC for which the matter was listed before the Court on
18.04.2024. The said application is still pending. On one hand, the petitioner has
moved an application under Order 11 Rule 14 of the CPC and on the other
hand an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is filed for dismissal of suit.
By filing an application demanding for documents, he is willing to proceed in
the civil suit and by filing another application he wants dismissal of civil suit
being not maintainable. Under these circumstances, the learned Trial Court has
not committed any error in passing the impugned order.
6. So far as interference in the orders passed by the learned Trial Court is
concerned the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty vs
Rajendra Shhankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held as under :-
"The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no
jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or
perversity, interference can be made. Interference is made to ensure
that Courts below act within the bounds of their authority. Another
view is possible, is not a ground for interference. Interference can
be made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error
of facts and law in a routine manner."
7. Therefore, no interference is called for in a well reasoned order passed by
the learned Trial Court.
8. This writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
4 MP-2874-2024
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
