Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Pramila Devi (Kumari) vs Smt. Shanti Devi on 3 October, 2018
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.1225 of 2018
---
Smt. Pramila Devi (Kumari), aged about 62 years, w/o Sri Krishna Nandan Prasad, resident of Shivapuri, Near DGMS Colony, PO & PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad ..... .... Petitioner/ Plaintiff
--Versus--
1.Smt. Shanti Devi, w/o late Ram Prasad Pandey, resident of Shivapuri, Near DGMS Colony, PO & PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad
2.Om Narayan Pandey, s/o late Ram Prasad Pandey, resident of Shivapuri, Near DGMS Colony, PO & PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad
3.Ghanshyam Prasad Pandey, s/o Braj Prasad, residing of DGMS Colony, Near Shiv Mandir, Police Line, PO & PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad .... ..... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents : ---
---
05/ 03.10.2018 The petitioner, plaintiff in Title Suit No.27 of 2004, is
aggrieved of order dated 04.12.2017 by which her application under section 30 r/w Order-XI Rule 14 CPC has been dismissed.
2. Order-XI CPC provides the procedure for discovery and inspection of documents. Rule 1 permits the parties to the suit to deliver interrogatories in writing and Rule 12 permits application for discovery of documents. Under Rule 16 any party can give notice to the other party to produce any document referred to in his pleadings or affidavit. The provisions under Order-XII deals with admissions. Under Rule 2 to Order-XII CPC either party may call upon the other party to admit any document. The object behind Order-XI & XII CPC is to give an opportunity to the parties to the suit to examine and produce on record the documents which have been referred to by the parties in their pleadings. That is the reason, under Order-XIII Rule 1 CPC the parties 2 must produce the original documents before framing of the issues in the suit. Not only the aforesaid application dated 17.07.2017 was filed by the plaintiff after the plaintiff 's evidence was closed, the trial Judge has recorded a finding that nothing has been brought on record by the plaintiff to suggest the relevance of the documents sought to be produced through defendant no.2.
3. Viewed thus, and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, finding no merit in the writ petition it is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) SI/,