Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 559 (RAJ)

Basti Ram @ Bastiya v. Shokhina Khatun

2015-03-02

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 24.01.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 11, Rule 12, 13 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 14.02.2007 executed by respondent No. 2 as power of attorney holder of the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 1. 3. During the pendency of the suit and after the defendant No. 2 was examined, an application under Order 11, Rule 12, 13 and 14 CPC was filed by the petitioner, inter alia, indicating that in the cross-examination the defendant No. 2 has stated that he was involved in property business for 8-9 years and maintains registers, has engaged a Muneem, filed income tax returns, payment of tax etc. is done by Chartered Accountant Naseer and, therefore, the said documents were relevant and the same be discovered/produced. 4. After hearing the parties the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not indicated as to how the documents were relevant, if the plaintiff wants to examine as to whether the transaction regarding which the suit has been filed has been incorporated in the accounts or not, the defendant No. 2 has not indicated that he has indicated the transaction in the register, no party can be permitted to develop the evidence and, consequently, dismissed the application. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application; the said documents were relevant for the subject matter of the suit as the defendant No. 2 clearly indicated in the cross-examination that he was maintaining the books of accounts and was filing income tax returns and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 7. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 7. The suit was filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 as power of attorney holder of the petitioner in favour of defendant No. 1 based on the averments that the documents were got signed by him by misrepresentation; the averments contained in the plaint were denied by the defendants; where after, the parties led their evidence and in cross-examination certain questions were put to defendant No. 2 regarding maintaining of the books of accounts and filing of the returns; where after, the present application was filed by the petitioner seeking discovery of the said document; the application was opposed by defendant No. 2 on the ground that the same was beyond the subject matter of the suit. 8. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner after quoting the part of cross-examination in the application has stated that for the purpose of correct decision of the suit, the documents would help and, therefore, order for discovery/production of the documents be passed. 9. For the purpose of grant of order under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC, if the Court is of the opinion that it is necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs, the discovery can be ordered. Further, for the purpose of production of documents also the discretion has been left with the Court if it thinks right and the document relates to any matter in question in the suit, the production of document can be ordered. However, the learned trial court after hearing the parties has come to the conclusion that neither the documents were necessary for disposing fairly of the suit, nor the document relating to any matter in the suit and, therefore, it rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 10. Merely because the defendant No. 2 indicated in the cross examination regarding maintaining of books of accounts and filing of the income tax returns, it was not sufficient for the petitioner to seek either discovery or production of said documents without indicating as to how it would aid in disposing fairly of the suit and/or the same relates to any matter in question in the suit. 11. 11. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the trial court committed any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 12. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.