Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 503 (MP)

Saraswatibai v. Asha

2014-05-02

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2014
ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants in the suit challenging the order of the trial Court dated 10.2.2014 whereby the respondent's application under Order 11 rule 14 CPC has been allowed and the petitioner No.3 has been directed to produce the original copy of the agreement dated 21.2.2011 in the Court failing which the photocopy will be accepted as secondary evidence. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioner has denied the existence and possession of the alleged agreement dated 21.2.2011, therefore, he cannot be directed to produce the original of the same. He has further submitted that the alleged agreement does not even contain the signature of the witnesses and is a fabricated document, but this aspect has not been considered by the trial Court. 3. As against this, learned counsel for respondent has referred to the plaint averment and has submitted that since the agreement is in possession of the petitioner No.3, therefore, the trial Court has rightly passed the interim order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 5. Under Order 11 rule 14 CPC the Court can direct at any time during the pendency of the suit production of a document relating to any matter in question in such suit. This Court in the matter of Daya Ram v. Ramesh Chandra Goyal reported in 2000(II) MPJR 68 has held that the party denying existence of the document cannot be compelled to produce the original. The Division Bench of Patna High Court in the matter of Rameshwar Narayan Singh v. Rikhanth Koeri reported in AIR 1920 Patna 131 has held that no direction under Order 11 rule 14 should be issued against a party unless he directly or indirectly admits the document to be in his possession or power. In the present case, the impugned order of the trial Court reveals that the trial Court has not considered the petitioners objection that they are not in possession of the agreement in question as also the requirement of Order 11 rule 14 in this regard. The plea of the petitioner in this regard raised in the written statement as well as reply to the application under Order 11 rule 14 of the CPC needs consideration by the trial Court. 6. The plea of the petitioner in this regard raised in the written statement as well as reply to the application under Order 11 rule 14 of the CPC needs consideration by the trial Court. 6. In view of this, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of the trial Court is set aside with a direction to the trial Court to decide the application under Order 11 rule 14 CPC afresh in accordance with law after taking note of the requirement of the Rule in question as also the judgments of the Courts in this regard.