Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 277 (MP)

Vivek Tripathi v. State of M. P.

2016-04-04

SHEEL NAGU

body2016
ORDER 1. Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the interlocutory Order dated 17.10.2015 passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class II, Distt. Morena in Civil Suit No. 33A/2015, by which an application under Order 11 rules 12 and 13 read with section 151 CPC preferred by the defendant No.1/petitioner herein has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. Perusal of the impugned interlocutory order indicates that the trial Court while rejecting the said application has assigned two reasons. The first being that the documents sought to be produced by the defendant No.1 were not relevant to the issue involved in the suit and the second being that the defendant No.1 has failed to make any statement in the said application that documents sought to be produced are in the possession of plaintiff. 4. A bare perusal of the provisions of order 11 rules 12 and 13 read with section 151 CPC indicates that one of the pre-requisite for invoking the said provision is that the party applying for production of documents is required to state in categorical terms that the persons from whom documents are being sought are in his possession of the documents . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decisions rendered in case of Narendra Gole v. Ram Krishna Sharma, reported in 2010(III) MPWN 125 and in case of Hari Devi (Smt) v. Smt. Drishna Devi and others, reported in 1990 JLJ 281 , which are of no application herein as the very basic pre-requisite of stating that the documents sought to be produced are in the possession of the plaintiff, has not been complied with by the defendant in his application under order 11 rules 12 and 13 read with section 151 CPC. Thus, these decisions are of no avail to the petitioner. 6. A bare perusal of the said application does not indicates that the petitioner has stated in specific terms that the said documents are in possession of the plaintiff. 7. Thus, these decisions are of no avail to the petitioner. 6. A bare perusal of the said application does not indicates that the petitioner has stated in specific terms that the said documents are in possession of the plaintiff. 7. In view of the above, no jurisdictional error has been committed by the trial Court in rejecting the petitioner's application under order 11 rule 12 and 13 read with section 151 CPC and therefore no case for interference under the limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is made out. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed.