Patna High Court
Bibi Nashrin Begum @ Nasrin Begum vs Md. Samsuddin on 19 March, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.6 of 2020
======================================================
1.1. Md. Naim Husband of Bibi Nashrin Begum and Son of Md. Sirajuddin,
Resident of Mohalla- Churamba, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. Munger Pargana,
District-Munger.
1.2. Md. Gauhar Son of Md. Naim, Resident of Mohalla- Churamba, P.S.
Kotwali, P.O. Munger Pargana, District-Munger.
1.3. Md. Samar, Son of Md. Naim, Resident of Mohalla- Churamba, P.S.
Kotwali, P.O. Munger Pargana, District-Munger.
1.4. Mohammad Nazis, Son of Md. Naim, Resident of Mohalla- Churamba, P.S.
Kotwali, P.O. Munger Pargana, District-Munger.
1.5. Naziya Perween, D/o Md. Naim, minor and under the guardianship of his
father Resident of Mohalla- Churamba, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. Munger Pargana,
District-Munger.
1.6. Sana Firdosh, Son of Md. Naim , Minor and under the guardianship of his
father Resident of Mohalla- Churamba, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. Munger Pargana,
District-Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Md. Samsuddin, Son of Late Abdul Khalique, resident of Mohalla-
Murgiachak, Masjid Gali, P.S.- Kotwali, P.O. Munger Pargana, District-
Munger.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, Advocate
Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. R.K. Sinha 2, Advocate
Mr. Tarkeshwar Pd. Verma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-03-2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
15.10.2019
passed in Eviction Suit No. 04 of 2012 by learned
Munsif 2nd, Munger whereby and whereunder the application
dated 06.04.2019 filed by the respondent under Order 16 Rule 7
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.6 of 2020 dt.19-03-2025
"the Code") has been allowed.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the parties
is that the petitioner as plaintiff has filed Eviction Suit bearing
No. 04 of 2012 beseeching the learned trial court to pass a
decree of eviction against the defendant/respondent apart from
seeking a decree of recovery of Rs.2400/- which became due
towards rent. The defendant/respondent appeared and filed his
written statement opposing the contention of the plaintiff. It
further transpires that as the defendant did not comply the order
under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent &
Eviction) Control Act, his defence was struck off vide order
dated 09.08.2016. It further transpires that during the trial, the
defendant filed a petition on 06.04.2019 in the learned trial court
submitting that plaintiff has deposed in his suit that she has
purchased the suit property from the defendant after taking loan
and also taking some money from the account of her husband.
So, she may be directed to produce in Court the paper regarding
the withdrawal of money from bank account as well as
regarding taking of loan. The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the said
petition opposing the contention. The learned Munsif 2 nd,
Munger vide order dated 15.10.2019 allowed the petition filed
on behalf of the defendant/respondent directing the plaintiff to
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.6 of 2020 dt.19-03-2025
produce all the documents as asked by the defendant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and unjust. The learned trial
court did not consider that at the instance of the defendant, it
cannot compel the plaintiff to produce certain documents. It is
for the plaintiff to prove her case with the evidence she thinks fit
and proper and not according to the dictates of the defendant.
The learned trial court also did not take into consideration the
fact that it is the case of the plaintiff that she has purchased the
land in question from the defendant and he has not challenged
the sale deed so whether the defendant can now demand
producing the evidence regarding receipt of money from which
she has purchased the suit property. Since the learned trial court
has not considered all the facts and circumstances, the impugned
order is an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel
further submits that the plaintiff is required to prove landlord
tenant relationship and if she fails in her duty, being an eviction
suit, her case would fail. She is not supposed to prove her title in
the eviction suit. The learned counsel referred to the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tribhuvanshankar
Vs. Amrutlal reported in (2014) 2 SCC 788 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that in the eviction suit, inquiry is to be
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.6 of 2020 dt.19-03-2025
limited to prove the landlord tenant relationship and there is no
need to prove title by the landlord to prove the landlord tenant
relationship. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable and the
same be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the
impugned order. The petition has been filed by the
defendant/respondent under Order 16 Rule 7 read with Section
151 of the Code and the said provision empowers the Court to
direct any person present in court to give evidence or produce
documents in their possession or power. Further under Order 11
Rule 14 of the Code Court can direct any party to produce the
documents relating to any matter in question in such suit.
Learned counsel thus submits that the impugned order is
perfectly legal. Further when the defendant/respondent has
taken a plea that no consideration money passed in this case, it
was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that the sale deed has
been validly executed. Learned counsel referred to the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basanagowda Vs.
Dr. S.B. Amarkhed and Ors. reported in (1992) 2 SCC 612
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in election matter that
the Court is clearly empowered and it shall be lawful for it to
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.6 of 2020 dt.19-03-2025
order the production, by any party in the suit provided the
production of documents are necessary to decide the matter
matter in question. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that
the Court has been also given the power to deal with the
documents when produced in such manner as shall appear just.
Thus, learned counsel submits that there is no infirmity in the
impugned order and the same needs to be sustained.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties. The issue before this Court is
within a limited confine whether on application of the
defendant, the Court could have asked the plaintiff to produce
certain documents.
7. Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code provides as under:
"Order XIII - Production, Impounding and
Return of Documents
Rule 1: Original documents to be produced at
or before the settlement of issues--
(1) The parties or their pleader shall produce
on or before the settlement of issues, all the
documentary evidence in original where the
copies thereof have been filed along with
plaint or written statement.
(2) The Court shall receive the documents so
produced:
Provided that they are accompanied by an
accurate list thereof prepared in such form as
the High Court directs.
(3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.6 of 2020 dt.19-03-2025
documents--
(a) produced for the cross-examination of the
witnesses of the other party; or
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh
his memory."
This provision makes it clear that parties are required
to produce all the documentary evidence in original on or before
the settlement of issues.
Thereafter Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code is also
relevant which reads as under:
"14. Production of documents.
It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time
during the pendency of any suit, to order the
production by any party thereto, upon oath of
such of the documents in his possession or
power, relating to any matter in question in
such suit, as the Court shall think right; and
the Court may deal with such documents,
when produced, in such manner as shall
appear just."
It is an empowering provision which makes it clear
that it shall be lawful of the Court to order for production by any
party thereto of any document in his possession or power
relating to the matter in such suit.
Further Order 16 Rule 7 of the Code reads as under:
"7. Power to require persons present in Court
to give evidence or produce document.
Any person present in Court may be required
by the Court to give evidence or to produce
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.6 of 2020 dt.19-03-2025
any document then and there in his possession
or power."
This provision provides for power given to a Court
regarding any person present in the Court to be ordered to give
evidence or to produce any document then and there in his
possession or power.
Now, the conjoint reading of these provisions show
that parties are supposed to bring on record all documents on or
before the settlement of issues and if they fail to do so, the
documents could be filed on record only with leave of the Court.
If a party fails to do so, it would be his own risk. In the instant
case if the plaintiff failed to bring any relevant document at the
stage of settlement of issues, it is her peril. But in certain
circumstances, the Court is empowered to direct any person or
any of the parties to produce documents in possession of such
person provided that the Court thinks it right that production of
the documents are necessary to decide the matter in question.
Further power has been given to the Court to deal with the
documents when produced in such manner as it would appear
just to the Court which means the power to order production of
documents is coupled with discretion to examine the
expediency, justifiability and relevancy of the document with
regard to the issue involved in the matter. The Hon'ble Supreme
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.6 of 2020 dt.19-03-2025
Court in the Basanagowda (supra) has held that the power to
order production of documents is coupled with discretion to
examine the expediency, justness and the relevancy of the
documents to the matter in question. These are relevant
consideration which the court shall have to advert to and weigh
before deciding to summoning the documents in possession of
the party.
8. Now, coming back to the facts of the case, the
defendant moved an application seeking certain documents on
the basis that in her cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that
she would be producing such documents. Now, the learned trial
court passed the orders merely reiterating the contention of the
defendant without considering whether the documents were
necessary, just and relevant for the purpose of deciding the
matter before it. The impugned order is completely silent on
these points. Though, there could be no quarrel with the fact that
the courts are empowered to direct any person/party to produce
any document but such order is subject to certain conditions as
to whether such documents are necessary and relevant and
whether it is expedient to call for such document. Since, the
learned trial court has not recorded its opinion or given any
reasoning, I am of the view that the impugned order dated
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.6 of 2020 dt.19-03-2025
15.10.2019 could not be sustained and hence, the same is set
aside.
9. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 22.03.2025
Transmission Date N/A
