Case Note & Summary
The case involves four writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging an order dated 1 August 2022 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court at Mumbai (Bandra Branch) below Exhibit-33 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.374/528 of 2011. The impugned order allowed the plaintiffs' application under Order XIII Rule 1, 4 and 7 and Order XVI Rule 6 and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking leave for production of additional documents. The Trial Court permitted the production and adjourned the suit for hearing on admissibility of those documents. The petitioners, who are defendants in the suit, challenged this order by way of writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard the petitions on 30 March 2023 and dismissed them in the morning session, observing that since the impugned order merely allowed production of documents and kept the matter for hearing on admissibility, no prejudice was caused to the petitioners. The court clarified that all contentions regarding admissibility of the documents were kept open. However, later that day, the Prothonotary and Senior Master received a complaint dated 30 March 2023, which is noted in the judgment. The court reiterated that interference under Article 227 was not warranted as the order was interlocutory in nature and did not finally adjudicate the rights of the parties.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Production of Documents - Order XIII Rule 1, 4, 7 and Order XVI Rule 6, 7 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The Trial Court allowed the plaintiffs' application for production of additional documents and kept the matter for hearing on admissibility. The High Court held that mere production of documents without a ruling on admissibility does not cause prejudice to the defendants, and therefore, no interference under Article 227 is required. (Paras 1-2)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court declined to interfere with an interlocutory order allowing production of documents, as the order did not finally determine the rights of the parties and the petitioners' contentions regarding admissibility were kept open. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order allowing production of additional documents under Order XIII Rule 1, 4 and 7 and Order XVI Rule 6 and 7 of CPC causes prejudice to the petitioners warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the impugned order merely allowed production of documents and kept the matter for hearing on admissibility, causing no prejudice to the petitioners. All contentions regarding admissibility were kept open.
Law Points
- Order XIII Rule 1
- 4
- 7 CPC
- Order XVI Rule 6
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Production of documents
- Admissibility of documents
- Prejudice
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (05) 20
Writ Petition No. 4002 of 2023, Writ Petition No. 4004 of 2023, Writ Petition No. 4005 of 2023, Writ Petition No. 4006 of 2023
Mr. Mohit Jadhav a/w Ms. Megha Shigavan, Ms. Kajal Chourasia and Mr. Shubham Shinde for the Petitioners. Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey a/w. Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Ms. Aarati Kushwaha, i/b. SAVJ Law Solutions, for Respondent No.3. Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General (Present on earlier dates). Mr. P.P. Kakade, Government Pleader and Mr. P.G. Sawant- AGP, for Respondent No.6 – State. Mr. Dharmesh Joshi i/b. T.D. Joshi and Associates for Respondent No.7. Mr. G. N. Salunke, i/b. Ms. Savita Yadav for Respondent No.8. Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Counsel - Amicus Curiae.
Radheshyam Jangad, Nemichand Giridharilal Gupta, Suresh Babu Diwakar, Mukesh Surjaram Khowal
Shanti Pralhad Sakla w/o. Late Pralhad Narayan Sakla (Through her Constituted Attorney and Son) Mr. Satish Sakla & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petitions challenging an interlocutory order allowing production of additional documents in a suit under the Rent Act (R.A.E. & R. Suit).
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the order dated 1 August 2022 passed by the Small Causes Court allowing the plaintiffs' application for production of additional documents.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, being defendants in the suit, contended that the Trial Court erred in allowing the production of additional documents at a belated stage.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court allowed the application under Order XIII Rule 1, 4, 7 and Order XVI Rule 6, 7 of CPC on 1 August 2022, permitting production of documents and adjourning the suit for hearing on admissibility.
Issues
Whether the impugned order allowing production of additional documents causes prejudice to the petitioners?
Whether interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted against an interlocutory order that does not finally determine the rights of the parties?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Trial Court erred in allowing the production of additional documents at a belated stage.
The respondents supported the impugned order, contending that the documents were necessary for just adjudication and that the petitioners would have an opportunity to object to admissibility.
Ratio Decidendi
An order allowing production of documents without ruling on their admissibility does not cause prejudice to the opposite party, and therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted. The party opposing production can raise all objections at the stage of admissibility.
Judgment Excerpts
By impugned order, the learned Trial Court allowed the said application. Thus, production of documents were allowed and the said suit was adjourned for hearing on admissibility of documents.
As by the impugned order, merely production of documents were allowed and matter was kept for hearing on admissibility of documents it is observed in order dated 30th March 2023 that there is no prejudice caused to the Petitioners and therefore, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not required.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed R.A.E. & R. Suit No.374/528 of 2011 before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai (Bandra Branch). On 1 August 2022, the Trial Court allowed the plaintiffs' application (Exhibit-33) under Order XIII Rule 1, 4, 7 and Order XVI Rule 6, 7 of CPC for production of additional documents. The defendants challenged this order by filing four writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard the petitions on 30 March 2023 and dismissed them in the morning session, with a clarification that contentions regarding admissibility were kept open. The judgment was delivered on 4 May 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XIII Rule 1, Order XIII Rule 4, Order XIII Rule 7, Order XVI Rule 6, Order XVI Rule 7
- Constitution of India: Article 227
