2017 (3) TMI 1874 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for declaration of 'B' schedule land - production of documents during the pendency of the suit - Order 16 Rule 6 C.P.C. - HELD THAT - The provision contained in Order 16 Rule 6 of C.P.C. is not to penalize a party. The plaintiffs have filed the certified copy of the registered sale deed. They assert that the document was in possession of the vendee-Paremeswar Naik. He is dead. The document is in custody of their Advocate. The document would show some light into the case. The petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of application to call for original registered sale deed.
2. Interpretation of Order 16 Rule 6 C.P.C.
3. Application of legal principles regarding production of documents in court proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petition challenged the order rejecting the application to call for the original registered sale deed, crucial for the case. The plaintiffs sought the document from the custody of the deceased vendee's son, as they only had a certified copy. The trial court rejected the application, stating the document was not relied upon, despite its relevance for a just decision. The petitioners argued that the document's absence could prejudice them and cited a relevant court decision supporting their stance.

2. The court deliberated on Order 16 Rule 6 C.P.C., which allows summoning a person to produce a document without giving evidence. Referring to a previous case, the court emphasized that documents called for must be in possession of a party and relate to the suit's subject matter. The court clarified that the power to direct document production is discretionary, guided by the documents' relevance to the case and their possession by a party. In the present case, the plaintiffs had filed a certified copy and claimed the original was with the deceased vendee's son, justifying the need for its production.

3. Applying the legal principles, the court found that the plaintiffs' possession of a certified copy and the original being with the vendee's son warranted the document's production for a fair adjudication. The court emphasized that the provision under Order 16 Rule 6 C.P.C. was not punitive but aimed at ensuring relevant documents are available for a just resolution. Consequently, the court quashed the earlier order and directed the trial court to issue a summons for the production of the original document, allowing the petition.