Simaranjit Singh vs Pritam Singh

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—Invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, order (Annexure P-5) dated 3.4.2014 passed by the lower court rejecting the application (Annexure P-3) dated 7.11.2012 filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order XI Rules 14 and 15 read with Section 151 CPC, has been challenged.

It is claimed that the documents required to be produced and proved in evidence go to the root of the matter and thus, were necessary for competent adjudication of the matter. Documents sought to be produced are in the shape of J-forms for sale of crops of the plaintiff to his commission agent w.e.f. 2004-05 till date. Similarly, documents of the plaintiff with regard to taking of his loan from the banks and cooperative agricultural services societies are sought to be produced from the plaintiff.

Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the petitioner while going through the paper book.

A suit for seeking possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 31.12.2004 preferred by the respondent-plaintiff is pending wherein decree has been sought against the petitioner-defendant for execution and registration of the sale deed of the suit land detailed in the plaint in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The suit was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff on 6.9.2006.

After conclusion of evidence by the respondent-plaintiff, the suit is fixed for evidence of the petitioner-defendant. When the petitioner-defendant was to conclude his evidence, an application under Order XI Rules 14 and 15 read with Section 151 CPC had been filed by him for calling upon the respondent-plaintiff to produce the documents mentioned in the application which are in the nature of J-forms for the sale of crops and documents pertaining to loans taken by the respondent-plaintiff from the banks as well as from the cooperative agricultural service societies; production of his passbooks is also sought.

When no such foundation has been laid by the petitioner-defendant in her written statement and there is no such issue wherein the plaintiff is required to prove any fact which requires production of the documents stated in the application of the petitioner-defendant, clearly enough this application was moved by the petitioner-defendant to delay and dilate the proceedings. The petitioner-defendant has filed the present application at the fag end of the proceedings in the suit when she was required to conclude her evidence, after which pronouncement of judgment (on hearing of arguments of counsel for the parties) is to follow from the court. It is important to note that after completion of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 24.10.2006 and even were recast on 11.2.2011 but no such pleadings were put forth by the petitioner-defendant and there is no issue which requires production of documents by the plaintiff.

It would be relevant to mention here that when the plaintiff appeared as his own witness in the witness box and was subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner-defendant, no cross-examination on these lines was effected. Had it been a genuine case of the defendant, she was not to fall short of asking questions with regard to issuance of J-form by the commission agents qua sale of crops by the respondent-plaintiff to them and was also to question the respondent-plaintiff qua obtaining of loans from the banks and cooperative agricultural service societies by him.

Counsel for the petitioner-defendant has cited a judgment of this Court rendered in Sharvan Kumar Versus Sumeet Kumar Garg PLR (2002) 132 P&H 666 wherein it was held that provisions, inter alia, of Rule 14 of Order XI are distinct and separate from the provisions of Rule 12 of Order XI. There is no dispute about this proposition of law and there cannot be any. However, in the circumstances of the present case with due deference, the authority cited by the petitioner-defendant does not help her because it would be seen little later that the application preferred by the petitioner-defendant was clearly an attempt to drag on the proceedings in the suit instituted in the year 2006 and that too at a stage when evidence is to be concluded by the petitioner-defendant herself to enable the lower court to render the judgment, after hearing counsel for the parties.

Even if stand of the petitioner-defendant, as set up during the trial is taken into consideration, the documents sought to be produced by the respondent-plaintiff have no connection with the stand so taken by the petitioner-defendant. The application thus is nothing but a misuser of the process of the court and is clearly a strategic venture of the petitioner-defendant for delaying and dilating the proceedings in the suit which is pending for conclusion of evidence by the petitioner-defendant after it was instituted as back as on 9.9.2006.

Keeping in view the totality of above facts and circumstances, no interference is called for as the impugned order (Annexure P-5) has no infirmity either on facts or in law. Sequelly, the petition being without any merit is dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed.

Nothing observed above shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit pending before the lower court.