Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 464 (KER)

Shukkoor S/o Nabeesa v. Asharaf S/o Abdul Rahiman

2025-03-05

K.BABU

body2025
JUDGMENT : The challenge in this Original Petition is to an order dismissing an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC in O.S.No.61/2020 on the file of the Subordinate Judges’ Court, Perumbavoor. 2. The suit was instituted for partition of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs claimed that the property originally belonged to one Sri.Mummy Anthruman, the father of plaintiff No.1. Respondent Nos. 1,3,7 and 8/ defendant Nos.1, 3, 7 and 8 are the great grandchildren of Sri.Mummy Anthruman. 3. Defendant Nos.3,7 and 8 pleaded in the written statement that Sri.Mummy Anthruman is their father. 4. The petitioners filed I.A.No.4/2021 seeking a direction to defendant Nos. 3, 7 & 8 to produce their Passports and school certificates. The Court below dismissed the application. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the documents sought to be produced are relevant for the determination of the questions involved in the suit. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners failed to establish that the production of the documents is expedient, just and relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Anthoyokkya Viswasa Samrakshana Samithi and Another v. K.V.Paulose and Another (2013 (1) KHC 580) 9. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on Thundiyil Abdurahiman v. Asharaf Kalapeedikayil ( 2019 (1) KHC 593 : AIR 2020 NOC 208 ) 10. Order XI Rule 14 reads thus:- “ 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.” 11. The Code permits the Court to order production of documents, if the Court shall think right. The words “as the Court shall think right” contained in Order XI Rule 14 empowers the Court to exercise its discretion in a wider manner. Order XI Rule 14 permits the Court to order production of documents relating to any matter in question. The Code permits the Court to order production of documents, if the Court shall think right. The words “as the Court shall think right” contained in Order XI Rule 14 empowers the Court to exercise its discretion in a wider manner. Order XI Rule 14 permits the Court to order production of documents relating to any matter in question. The expression “matter in question” has been constructed by judicial pronouncements as a question or issue in dispute in the action and not the thing about which such dispute arises. (Vide:- Padmanabhan v.Kannan, (1980 KHC 7) and Anthoyokkya Viswasa Samrakshana Samithi and Another v. K.V.Paulose and Another (2013 (1) KHC 580) 12. In a suit for partition, title is a question or issue in dispute. On the scope of Order XI Rule 14, in Basanagouda v. Dr.S.B.Amarkhed and Others ( 1992 KHC 844 : AIR 1992 SC 1163 ) , in Paragraph 7 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held thus:- “7. The Court, therefore, is clearly empowered and it shall be lawful for it to order the production, by any party to the suit, such documents in his possession or power relate to any matter in question in the suit provided the Court shall think right that the production of the documents are necessary to decide the matter in question. The Court also has been given power to deal with the documents when produced in such manner as shall appear just. Therefore, 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 considerations which the Court shall have to advert to and weigh before deciding to summoning the documents in possession of the party to the election petition……” 13. Following Basanagouda , this Court in Thundiyil Abdurahiman (supra) , observed that Order XI Rule 14 of the Code does not attach to a party an absolute right to insist for production of a document in the possession of the adverse party. The Court held that the right of the applicant is liable to be determined by the Court in the light of the test of expediency, justness and relevancy. While constructing Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC, this Court in Anthoyokkya Viswasa Samrakshana Samithi (supra) observed thus:- “12. The Court held that the right of the applicant is liable to be determined by the Court in the light of the test of expediency, justness and relevancy. While constructing Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC, this Court in Anthoyokkya Viswasa Samrakshana Samithi (supra) observed thus:- “12. From the above discussion, it is discernible that the power under O.11 R.14 CPC can be invoked by the Court on the application of any party to the suit and at any stage during the pendency of the suit. The documents sought to be produced must be in the possession or power of the other party and it must relate to any matter in question in such suit. The provision empowers the Court to deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just. In other words the document, when produced, if found to be inadmissible, then the Court is having sufficient power to reject it at the appropriate time. 13. Affidavit filed by the respondents before the Court below disclose no specific reason, pertinent in this context, for compelling the petitioners to produce the document. Nowhere it is mentioned in the affidavit that the document sought to be produced is relevant for the determination of question involved in the suit, viz; possession of immovable property. Therefore, the learned Munsiff was not right in allowing the petition.” 14. In view of the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that the documents sought to be produced are relevant for the determination of the question involved in the suit as it has a direct bearing on the title of the property over which the parties raised the claim. The learned Trial Judge did not consider those aspects. It appears that the Court below causally dismissed the application, which is evident from the impugned order, which is extracted below:- “Heard. Petitioners requested to direct D3, 7 & 8 to produce their passports for proving the name of parents of D3, 7 & 8. Respondents opposed the petition. In my considered opinion, D3, 7 & 8, can produce their passport if they wish to do so and they cannot be compelled to produce the same to prove the name of their father. Hence the petition is only to be dismissed.” 15. Respondents opposed the petition. In my considered opinion, D3, 7 & 8, can produce their passport if they wish to do so and they cannot be compelled to produce the same to prove the name of their father. Hence the petition is only to be dismissed.” 15. In view of the finding that the documents sought to be produced are relevant for the determination of the questions involved in the suit, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 16. In the result, the order dated 20.07.2022 in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.S.No.61 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Perumbavoor, stands set aside. I.A.No. 4/2021 is allowed. 17. Defendant Nos. 3, 7 and 8 shall produce their Indian Passports, if any, issued to them and in their possession. They shall also produce the school leaving certificates, if any, in their possession. On production of the documents referred to above, the Trial Court shall return them after retaining the certified copies of the same. 18. Defendant Nos.3, 7 and 8 are at liberty to file affidavit stating their inability to produce the documents by reason of non-obtainment of such documents or on the ground that they are not in possession of those documents. The Trial Court shall dispose of the Original Suit within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Original Petition is allowed as above.