Bombay High Court
Pramod Kumar Harishchandra Agrawal vs Shri Ashish S/O Niranjanlal Agrawal And ... on 26 November, 2018
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 wp 971.17 judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.971 of 2017
Pramod Kumar Harishchandra Agrawal,
Age 52 years, Occ.-Advocate,
R/o.-Manohar Chowk, Opp.Traffic Police Hq.,
Dist. Gondia, Mobile 9372710957,
email:[email protected]. .... Petitioner/plaintiff.
Versus
1] Ashish s/o Niranjanlal Agrawal,
Aged 37 years, Occ.- Business,
C/o. Niranjanlal Bholaram Agrawal,
5, Sector 1, Gitanjali Nagar, Bottle House Road,
Tah. & Dist. Raipur-492 007 (C.G.)
2] Ashok Kumar s/o Bisandas Mankani,
Aged 50 years, Occ.- Business,
R/o.-Narmada Mobile Shop, Gorelal Chowk, Gondia-441 601.
3] Naresh Kumar s/o Bisandas Mankani,
Aged 50 years, Occ.- Business,
R/o.-Narmada Mobile Shop, Gorelal Chowk, Gondia-441 601.
4] Summet s/o Lokeshkumar Bhalotiya,
Aged 37 years, Occ.- Business,
R/o.- Prem Rice Mill, Kudwa Line, Nr Railway Foot bridge,
Gondia 441601. .... Respondents/defendants
Petitioner in-person.
Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, Counsel for resp. nos.1 to 4.
::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 08:47:38 :::
2 wp 971.17 judgment.odt
Coram : Manish Pitale, J.
Dated : 26th November, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. Pramod Agrawal, petitioner in-person and Mr. Joharapurkar, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged two orders passed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Gondia (trial Court), whereby the applications filed under Order XI Rules 4 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), have been rejected. The petitioner (original plaintiff) had filed these applications, seeking answer on interrogatories and for discovery of documents from the defendants/respondents in a suit for declaration and damages filed by the petitioner before the trial Court.
3. The petitioner, in his application under Order XI Rule 4 of the CPC, has sought answer on as many as 36 interrogatories from the respondents and by his application for discovery of documents, he has sought 25 documents from the respondents in the pending suit. The trial Court in the impugned order dated 21-11-2016, passed in the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 4 of the CPC, while rejecting the application has held as follows :
"4] Heard learned Counsel for both the parties, perused the record. Present application filed by plaintiff for discovery by interrogatories. As per provisions order-::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 08:47:38 :::
3 wp 971.17 judgment.odt 11 rule-1 in any suit the plaintiff defendant by leave of the court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of opposite parties or any more of such parties. As per rule-4 interrogatories shall be in form no.2 in Appendix-C, with such variations as circumstances may require. It appears that by this application plaintiff wants to know regarding the order passed by Deputy Commissioner Bhandara on dt/- 11/07/1956 pertaining to the plot situated at Gondia, Nazul Sheet No.19, plot No.72 and from where Bhalaram Agrawal purchased the plot situated at Gondia and applicants and genealogical issues of Bholaram Agrawal. In the same way order passed by the SDO etc. From the application itself reveals that the plaintiff demanding the discovery by interrogatories regarding the documentary evidence. Form the application it appears that plaintiff himself knows the passing of order by Deputy Commissioner Bhandara on dt/-11/07/1956 and application filed on dt/-26/12/1989 by Niranjanlal Agrawal before SDO, passing of order by SDO Gondia on 27/07/1992. Considering this, he can very well get certified copies of the same. But he filed present application. Considering this, there is no substance appears in the application, therefore, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER 1] The application vide Exh-23 stands rejected.
2] Parties to bear their own costs."
4. While rejecting the application, by impugned order dated 21-11-2016, preferred by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 12 of the CPC for discovery of documents, the trial Court has held as follows :::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 08:47:38 :::
4 wp 971.17 judgment.odt "5] After going through the averment of plaint it seems that present suit is filed for declaration and damages against defendants. The plaintiff demanded copy of order, application for renewal of lease of plot no.72 and other documents from which it appears that all the documents are from the official custody in some proceeding or mutation entries. Considering this, at this juncture I am of the view that plaintiff can very well obtain certified copies from concerned department and filed it on record. Therefore, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1] The application vide Exh-24 stands
rejected.
2] Parties to bear their own costs."
5. It is submitted by the petitioner in-person that both the impugned orders are unsustainable because as per the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of Order XI of the CPC, the respondents were bound to answer the interrogatories submitted by the petitioner and to give discovery of documents on oath as per the prayer made by him.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Joharapurkar, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that a perusal of the plaint filed on behalf of the petitioner would show that he has enumerated all the events and referred to all the referred documents therein and that when the respondents have denied the same in the written statement, the petitioner is seeking to prove his contentions and the documents relied upon by him by resorting to ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 08:47:38 ::: 5 wp 971.17 judgment.odt Order XI Rules 4 and 12 of the CPC. According to learned Counsel, this is impermissible.
7. A perusal of the plaint in the suit for declaration and damages filed by the petitioner shows that the petitioner has stated events in detail leading up to the filing of suit and reference is made to large number of documents relatable to such events. The petitioner has also placed on record copies of such documents.
8. In response, the respondents in their written statement have denied the claims of the petitioner and issues have been framed by the trial Court. It is, at this stage, that the petitioner has filed the said applications under Order XI Rules 4 and 12 of the CPC.
9. A perusal of the contents of the plaint show that not only has the petitioner narrated the events that occurred right up to the filing of this suit, he has also referred to and relied upon various documents. In the face of denial by the respondents, the petitioner has filed the said applications claiming answers on 36 interrogatories and seeking production of documents numbering 25 from the defendants. It is settled law that the person who approaches the Court and makes certain claims, upon which he seeks specific reliefs from the Court, is expected to stand on his own legs and to prove his case. The documents on which the petitioner (original plaintiff) is seeking to rely in the present case are documents of which he is not only aware but copies of the same have been placed on record. In order to prove the same, the petitioner, as the plaintiff, is required to take appropriate steps as per the law of evidence ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 08:47:38 ::: 6 wp 971.17 judgment.odt and the entire burden on the petitioner cannot be sought to be shifted by way of filing applications under Order XI of the CPC. The petitioner is at liberty to prove the documents by way of procedure known to law. The petitioner cannot be permitted to by-pass the procedure by adopting shortcuts and by resorting to applications under Order XI of CPC. There cannot be any quarrel with the propositions laid down in the judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner, but at the same time when the Court exercises discretion under Order XI of CPC, it has to keep in mind that the object of the said provisions is not to enable the applicant to seek proof of such events and documents by asking for documents from the defendants when copies of the same are already placed on record by the applicant/plaintiff himself. The defendants have already placed their stand on record in their written statement.
10. Thus, viewed from this angle, the approach adopted by the Court below in the impugned order, particularly in the paragraphs quoted above, cannot be said to be erroneous.
11. In the light of the above, the present Writ Petition is found to be without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE Deshmukh ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 08:47:38 :::