Rajendra Singh vs Samrath Mal and Others

Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dt. 29.05.2014 passed by trial Court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI, Rule 14 CPC has been dismissed. The application was filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the plaintiff to produce the original rent note dt. 01.02.2008.

A reply to the application was filed by the plaintiff indicating that the so called rent note dt. 01.02.2008 was never executed between the plaintiff and defendant and when no such rent note exists, there is no question of production of the same; allegations were made in the reply that the application has been filed with a view to delay the proceedings before the trial Court.

The trial Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 2 CPC and further has filed the application without undertaking the procedure under Order XI, Rule 12 CPC; further the trial Court was of the opinion that the application has been filed after lapse of considerable time and, consequently, dismissed the application.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was sufficient material available on record for the trial Court to exercise powers under Order XI, Rule 14 CPC, inasmuch as, a specific plea in the written statement regarding existence of rent note dt. 01.02.2008 was raised, to which, no replication was filed and, therefore, the rejection of the application for the reasons indicated by the trial Court is baseless and the writ petition deserves to be entertained and allowed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

The very fact that the plaintiff in his reply to the application, supported by affidavit, clearly denied the existence of the rent note dt. 01.02.2008, there was no occasion for the trial Court to thereafter direct the plaintiff to produce the rent note, unless based on the material available on record, the reply filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the trial Court.

The various submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding existence of the rent note may be relevant for the purpose of persuading the trial Court to ultimately based on the evidence available on record to draw adverse inference against the plaintiff, but for the purpose of application under Order XI, Rule 14 CPC the said aspects are wholly irrelevant. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs.