Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2398/2025 on 14 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:7201
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPMS/2398/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Respondent filed a suit for eviction
and recovery of use and occupation charges against the petitioner with the averment that the property in question belongs to a Dharamshala and predecessor in interest of the petitioner had started claiming said property to be their private property and pursuant to order dated 23.12.1981 passed by learned District Judge, Kumaon, Nainital in Civil Case No. 9 of 1974, petitioners' father was removed from the trusteeship of Dharamshala.
3. Perusal of the documents enclosed with the writ petition reveals that petitioner and his brothers thereafter filed a declaratory suit under Section 229B of UPZA&LR Act to declare them Bhumidhar in respect of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 391 & 394; however, the said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.10.2015 and appeal filed by petitioner and his brother against trial Court's judgment was also dismissed on 07.02.2017. Despite losing in the declaratory suit, petitioner is continuing to occupy part of the property belonging to Dharmshala, including shops.
4. The suit filed by Dharamshala was numbered as Civil Suit No. 71 of 2018.
2025:UHC:7201
5. In the said suit, petitioner moved an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for production of following documents:-
(i) Certified copy of permission granted by learned Advocate General for instituting Suit under Section 92 CPC, pursuant to which Civil Suit No. 09 of 1974 was registered, which was decided by learned District Judge, Kumaon, Nainital.
(ii) The deed executed by Raja Udai Raj Singh, whereby Khasra Nos. 404, 407, 410 & 650 situate in Village Maheshpura, Tehsil Kashipur was allotted to Lala Chandra Sen.
(iii) Any Khasra Khautani in which name of Raja Udai Raj Singh is entered as tenure holder in respect of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 404, 407, 410 & 650 situate in Village Maheshpura, Tehsil Kashipur.
6. Petitioner filed another application under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC. Both applications, filed by petitioner, were rejected by learned trial court vide order dated 17.10.2024. Petitioner thereafter filed Civil Revision No. 94 of 2024, which was dismissed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar vide judgment dated 08.01.2025. Thus, feeling aggrieved petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the order passed by learned trial court, as affirmed by learned Revisional Court.
7. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined his challenge to the order passed by trial court, as affirmed by revisional court, only qua rejection of petitioner's application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC and he did not make any 2025:UHC:7201 submission against rejection of application filed Under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC.
8. Perusal of trial court's order reveals that plaintiff in the suit (respondent herein) filed objection to the applications filed by petitioner contending that the applications are filed with the sole motive of delaying disposal of the suit; defendant (petitioner herein) was party to Civil Suit No. 09 of 1974, which was decided by District Judge, Kumaon, Nainital and he is aware that all documents, including permission given by Advocate General, are part of record of Civil Suit No. 09 of 1974; there is no deed executed by Mr. Raja Udai Raj Singh for allotting the land in question, therefore, there is no question of producing the deed, which is not in existence at all; defendant (petitioner herein) has sought production of Khasra of plot numbers 404, 407, 410 & 650 which are public documents and defendant can obtain copy thereof from Revenue Authorities and produce before the Court, and plaintiff does not have copy of the documents, copies whereof were sought by defendant.
9. It was further stated in the objection that in the order passed in Civil Suit No. 09 of 1974, not only the old plot numbers of the property in question are indicated, but their corresponding new numbers are also given. It was further stated that petitioner has requested for copy of certain revenue records, which can be produced by him as revenue records, are public document, which can be obtained by anyone. Respondent further contended that the documents, production whereof was sought by the 2025:UHC:7201 petitioner, are neither relevant nor necessary for deciding the suit.
10. Learned trial court rejected the application filed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC by holding that there does not appear to be any justification for production of documents as mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner.
11. The application filed under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC was also rejected by learned trial court vide order dated 17.10.2024 on the ground that the said application cannot be allowed at a belated stage as plaintiff's witness have been cross- examined by the defendant and defendant witnesses are left to be examined.
12. Learned revisional court affirmed the order passed by trial court by holding that since petitioner was party to Original Suit No. 09 of 1974, therefore, he himself can produce the permission granted by Advocate General for instituting suit under Section 92 CPC. As regards production of revenue records, learned revisional court held that revenue records are public documents, which petitioner himself can obtain and produce; Chairman of Dharamshala, was cross-examined by petitioner and now the matter is fixed for examination of defendant's witnesses, therefore, the application for discovery by interrogatory cannot be allowed at this belated stage.
13. Order 11 Rule 14 CPC is extracted below:-
"Order 11 Rule 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 2025:UHC:7201 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."
14. The provision contained in Order 11 Rule 14 CPC is in the nature of enabling provision, which empowers the Court irrespective of the stage of the suit to order any party whether plaintiff or defendant, to produce any document as it thinks fit for proper adjudication of the issues. No order should be made against a party under this provision unless he has directly or indirectly admitted the document to be in his possession or power. Exercise of power under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC is discretionary and is subject to two conditions being satisfied viz. (i) the documents, production whereof is sought for, must be in the possession or power of the party against whom the direction is sought for and (ii) the documents must relate to the controversy involved in the suit.
15. Under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, the Court, at any time during the pendency of a suit, has the discretion to order any party to produce documents relevant to the case. This power can be exercised either suo motu, or upon application by a party to the suit. Thus, Court can order for production of such documents, which are relevant for deciding the issues.
16. The Court does not automatically order production merely because a document is requested. The Court has to evaluate whether the requested documents are relevant to the issue in the suit. Rule 14 of Order 11 CPC is not 2025:UHC:7201 intended to allow parties to engage in a fishing expedition to discover unknown documents. The party seeking production must have some reason to believe that the documents exist and are relevant.
17. Learned trial court has considered all relevant aspects while passing the order dated 17.10.2024 and had rejected the application filed by petitioner under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC by holding that all the documents, copy whereof is sought by the petitioner, were part of record of Civil Suit No. 09 of 1974 in which petitioner was also a party. Learned trial court took note of the stand taken by plaintiff (respondent herein) that he does not have copy of the documents sought for by the petitioner for rejecting the application. Learned trial court further observed that Khata Khautani and other revenue records are public documents which can be obtained by the petitioner.
18. The order passed by learned trial court cannot be faulted. The plaintiff respondent denied that the documents sought by the defendant petitioner are in his possession or power, therefore, one of the pre-conditions, for exercise of power under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, was missing.
19. While rejecting petitioner's application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, learned trial court has observed that the prayer for production of documents made by the petitioner appears to be unjustified, as Civil Suit No. 09 of 1974 was decided by learned District Judge, Kumaon, Nainital on merits and the judgment rendered in the said civil suit is still effective.
2025:UHC:7201
20. This Court concurs with the reasoning given by learned trial court. The request for production of documents must not be fanciful but the documents must relate to the controversy involved in the suit. The observation made by learned trial court reveals that the court concerned was of the view that the documents requested for are not relevant to the case. Since order 11 Rule 14 CPC is an enabling provision which empowers the Court to direct a party to produce any document and it does not create any right in favour of a party, therefore, the power given by said provision has to be exercised within the parameters set-out in the provision itself.
21. Since the condition precedent for exercise of that power was not present, therefore, learned trial court was justified in rejecting the prayer made by petitioner for production of document. The revisional court was, therefore, right in not interfering with trial court's order. Any interference with the order passed by trial court, as affirmed by revisional court, in exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution would be unwarranted.
22. Thus, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 14.08.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, SINGH ASWAL serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726 FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.08.20 06:03:57 -07'00' 2025:UHC:7201