AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Jha, J.—These two civil revisions arise out of identical order of the Court below and hence they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
The Defendants are the Petitioners. The Plaintiffs filed suit for eviction under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. According to the Defendants, the subject matter of the suit is wakf property and hence not amenable to the said Act. The Defendants wanted the Plaintiffs to produce documents showing their title to the premises. The prayer has been rejected by the impugned order.
Counsel for the Petitioners referred to the provisions of Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said rule enables the Court at any stage of the suit to order production of any document by any party relating to any matter in question as the Court thinks right. It would appear that the provision is in 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. The said provision is not meant for either Plaintiff or Defendant. The CPC contemplates the stage at which the parties are to produce documents etc. The provision as contained in Rule 14 is in addition to the said provision and is meant for the Court.
Counsel referred to provisions of Order 7 Rules 14. That rule too, I am afraid, is of no avail to the Petitioners. The rule is in two parts. The first part provides that "where the Plaintiff sues upon a document" he has to produce it in Court along with the plaint. The second part provides that "where he relies on any other documents" he has to mention such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint. In other words, where the suit is based on document, the document is to be produced alongwith plaint, other documents which are in nature of evidence, can be produced later, only the list thereof is to be annexed to the plaint.
In the above view of the matter, the prayer of the Petitioners for direction to the Plaintiffs to produce copy of the title deed, having regard to the nature of the suit which has been filed for evictiorir was clearly misconceived. The order of the Court below rejecting the same, therefore, cannot be said to be illegal.
These civil revisions are dismissed.