[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Karamat vs Anand Sagar Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. ... on 3 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3433
1 MP-397-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 3 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 397 of 2026
KARAMAT
Versus
ANAND SAGAR REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. THROUGH MANAGING
DIRECTOR SHRI VARJINER SINGH CHHABRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manish Sankhla - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition assails the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 (Annexure P/1)
passed on application under Order 11 Rule 12 r/w Section 151 CPC filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
02. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit for specific
performance and for permanent injunction against the defendant (respondent
herein) which is a company on the basis of oral agreement entered into between
the plaintiff/petitioner and defendant/respondent No. 1. The allegations in the
plaint is that on 03.08.2021 Rs.25 lacs, on 04.08.2021 Rs. 25 lacs, on 07.08.2021
Rs.25 lacs and on 15.09.2021 Rs. 25 lacs, in total Rs. 1 Crore rupees was
transferred by the plaintiff in the account of respondent-company through RTGS
and receipt of that amount has not been refused by the respondent No. 1, but by
affidavit the Director of the company has submitted that this money transfer is not
with regard to oral agreement, but it is in connection with the loan which was
advanced by defendant No. 1 to plaintiff and in repayment of that amount as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3433
2 MP-397-2026
mentioned herein-above has been transferred. To clarify the position through ITR
of the year 2019-20 and 2020-21, the application under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC
(Annexure P/7) was filed which was opposed by the respondent No. 1 and after
hearing the parties, the same has been dismissed by the impugned order which has
given rise to this petition.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved
in the case can be resolved by calling the aforesaid ITRs from the defendant-
company as payment of money of Rs.1 Crores as mentioned herein-above is not in
dispute. The purpose could be proved by the aforesaid documents, therefore, the
application should have been allowed, but the learned Court below failed to
appreciate the contentions in right perspective and without any reasoned order
only on the basis that 3 opportunities for adducing evidence has been given and as
a delaying tactics, this application has been filed, therefore, the impugned order is
bad-in-law. Mere delay cannot be a ground to dismiss the application whereby
some material document has been called for and which may have bearing on the
controversy involved in the suit, therefore, prays for allowing the petition by
setting aside the impugned order and allow the application under Order 11 Rule 12
r/w Section 151 of CPC with a direction to the respondent No. 1 for filing the
documents/ITR as mentioned herein-above.
04. Heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and perused the record.
0 5 . From perusal of the plaint (Annexure P/5), application filed under
Order 11 Rule 12 r/w Section 151 CPC (Annexure P/7) and reply thereon, this
Court comes to the conclusion that the document i.e. ITR of respondent No. 1 for
the year 2019-20 and 2020-21 was material document for proving the purpose for
which the money of Rs. 1 Crore as mentioned herein-above was transferred by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3433
3 MP-397-2026
plaintiff in the account of respondent-company, therefore, on the mere fact that the
application has been filed before framing of issues and it has been filed after three
opportunities were already afforded to the plaintiff for adducing evidence, in the
considered opinion of this Court delay caused by this type of negligence on the
part of the plaintiff could have been compensated by way of cost, but the
documents should have been called as requested by the plaintiff (Petitioner
herein).
06. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that petition
has substance, needs to be allowed and is hereby allowed subject to deposit the
cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the Legal Aid Services
Authority, Indore. The impugned order dated 01.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) is hereby
set aside. The application under 11 Rule 12 r/w Section 151 CPC filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff is hereby allowed. The trial Court will direct the respondent to
produce that ITRs relating to respondent No. 1-company for the year 2019-20 and
2020-21 and thereafter the trial Court will proceed for recording of the evidence.
0 7 . Accordingly, the petition is allowed and disposed off to the extent
herein-above indicated.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya
