Ahsok Lalwani vs Shri Dayal Singh

K.K. Trivedi, J.—Though the writ petition is listed for further orders and though it is admitted on 17.02.2014, looking to the short controversy involved, the writ petition is heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner, who is plaintiff in the suit, has moved an application under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Rule 14 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a direction to the respondent-defendant to disclose the evidence on affidavit. Such an application was opposed by the respondent-defendant and the Trial Court rejected the said application, hence this writ petition has been fled.

It is contended by the petitioner, who appears in person, that the suit is fled seeking eviction of the tenant on various grounds. The fact has been stated that rent of the demise premises was fixed under an agreement. The petitioner was giving the receipts of the payment of rent, therefore, such documents, which were available with the respondent-defendant, were required to be produced or a declaration to that effect was required to be made. However, instead of considering the provisions of law in that respect, the application of the petitioner is rejected, therefore, this writ petition is required to be fled.

Per contra, it is contended by learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant that since there is a dispute with respect to the title as also the right of petitioner to claim eviction, no direction could be given to produce any record and as such if a prayer made by the petitioner is denied by the Trial Court, no error of law is committed. It is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

The short question is what would be the effect of Order 11 Rule 12 read with Rule 14 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provisions of discovery and inspection, as incorporated in Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prescribe discovery of documents and discovery of interrogatories. However, no interrogatories have been given by the petitioner. The only prayer made by the petitioner is for disclosing on affidavit the documents of receipts of rent paid by the respondent-defendant. If no such documents are available with the respondent-defendant, a simple affidavit to that effect may be fled. He can also object to produce such documents. The reason explained by the Court below for rejecting such a prayer of the petitioner is that in the pleadings there is no reference made to such document. Even if there is no dispute with respect to the quantum of rent or receipts of the said rent, for establishing the claim that rent was received by the petitioner, such a document would be necessary. If the original receipts are available with the respondent-defendant, the same can be produced before the Trial Court.

Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.10.2013, so far as it relates to rejection of the application of the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Rule 14 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is hereby set aside. The application of the petitioner stands allowed. Let necessary documents be produced by the respondent-defendant on affidavit.

Since this Court has expedited the hearing of the Civil Suit vide order dated 19.07.2013 passed in M.C.C. No. 885/2013 and other analogous M.C.C.s, the Trial Court will expedite the hearing of the civil suit.

The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.