Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of the original defendant Sharad, challenged an order dated 20/2/2012 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, allowing an application (Exh. 118) filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for production of the original agreement of sale. The respondent no.1 had filed Special Civil Suit No. 733/1996 for specific performance of an oral contract dated 29/10/1994, alleging that the deceased defendant had agreed to sell his house for Rs.12 lacs and received Rs.15,000 as earnest money. The petitioners denied the existence of any such agreement. The trial court allowed the application, directing the petitioners to produce the original document. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the trial court's order was just and proper. The court reasoned that the document is relevant and necessary for adjudication of the suit, and the petitioners cannot avoid production merely by denying its existence. The court also observed that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is a crucial issue, and production of the original agreement is essential. The court further noted that if the original is not produced, the plaintiff may be permitted to lead secondary evidence, but that does not absolve the petitioners from producing it if in their possession. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Production of Documents - Order XI Rule 14 CPC - The court allowed the application for production of original agreement of sale, holding that the document is relevant and necessary for adjudication of the suit for specific performance. The court observed that the petitioners cannot avoid production merely by denying the existence of the document, as the plaintiff has pleaded its existence and the court must determine the truth. (Paras 4-6)
B) Specific Relief Act - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - The court noted that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract is a crucial issue, and production of the original agreement is essential to adjudicate that issue. (Para 5)
C) Evidence Act - Secondary Evidence - The court held that if the original is not produced, the plaintiff may be permitted to lead secondary evidence, but that does not absolve the petitioners from producing the original if it is in their possession. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the application for production of the original agreement of sale under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the petitioners can be compelled to produce the original document despite their denial of its existence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order directing the petitioners to produce the original agreement of sale. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Production of original document
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Order XI Rule 14 CPC
- adverse inference
- secondary evidence
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (04) 92
Writ Petition No. 1000 of 2012
Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari for petitioners, Shri Rohit Joshi for respondent no.1, Shri P.V. Bhoyar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.2
Smt. Shalini wd/o Sharad Kirwai, Mrs. Vandana w/o Arun Pawade, Dr. Mrs. Archana w/o Kiran Pawade, Mrs. Bhavana w/o Anil Thengdi
Shankar Neelkantan Iyer, 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order allowing application for production of original document in a suit for specific performance.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the order dated 20/2/2012 passed by the trial court directing them to produce the original agreement of sale.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, as legal heirs of the original defendant, challenged the trial court's order allowing the plaintiff's application for production of the original agreement of sale under Order XI Rule 14 CPC.
Previous Decisions
The trial court allowed the application (Exh. 118) on 20/2/2012, directing the petitioners to produce the original agreement of sale.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the application for production of the original agreement of sale under Order XI Rule 14 CPC.
Whether the petitioners can be compelled to produce the original document despite their denial of its existence.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that they denied the existence of any agreement and therefore cannot be directed to produce it.
The respondent no.1/plaintiff contended that the document is relevant and necessary for adjudication of the suit, and the petitioners must produce it if in their possession.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the trial court's order for production of the original document under Order XI Rule 14 CPC was just and proper, as the document is relevant and necessary for adjudication of the suit for specific performance. The petitioners cannot avoid production merely by denying the existence of the document; the court must determine the truth. If the original is not produced, the plaintiff may be permitted to lead secondary evidence, but that does not absolve the petitioners from producing it if in their possession.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial court has passed the impugned order which is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
The petitioners cannot avoid production of the document merely by denying its existence.
If the original is not produced, the plaintiff may be permitted to lead secondary evidence.
Procedural History
The respondent no.1/plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 733/1996 for specific performance of contract. During the suit, the plaintiff filed an application (Exh. 118) under Order XI Rule 14 CPC for production of the original agreement of sale. The trial court allowed the application on 20/2/2012. The petitioners, legal heirs of the original defendant, challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 1000 of 2012 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XI Rule 14
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
