Smt. Rajendra Kumari vs Chandrakant

Ms. Bela M. Trivedi, J.—The petitioner-plaintiff has challenged the orders dated 16.1.14 and 27.2.15 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (East) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ''the trial court'') in Civil Suit No. 50/99, whereby the trial court has rejected the applications filed by the petitioner under Order 11, Rule 12 & 14 and under Order 16, Rule 6 of CPC.

In the instant case it appears that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondents-defendants seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit plot. According to the petitioner the said plot was originally allotted to one Kishan Chand by Laxminarainpuri Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ''the said society) and the petitioner had purchased the same from Shri Kishan Chand in the year 1992. It has been alleged by the petitioner that since the father of the defendant No.2 was the President of the said society, he in collusion with the defendant No.1 forged certain documents and therefore the plot was not transferred in the name of the petitioner by the said society. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 read with Order 16, Rule 6 of CPC for production of certain documents from the said society. The said application came to be rejected by the trial court by order dated 16.10.14. The petitioner again filed an application under Order 16, Rule 6 of CPC,raising the same contentions, which also has been rejected by the trial court vide the order dated 27.2.15. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present petition has been filed.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Mitruka for the petitioner that the documents sought to be called from the society are very relevant documents and therefore the trial court should have exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner.

The court does not find any substance in the said submission. It is not disputed that the petitioner did not challenge the earlier order dated 16.10.14 passed by the trial court and filed similar application before the trial court for summoning the concerned person from the said society for production of the documents under Order 16, Rule 6 of CPC.

The counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy as to how the earlier application filed by the petitioner under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 of CPC was maintainable as the said application could be filed only against the party to the suit and the society who is allegedly in possession of the documents in question was not the party to the suit. He has also not been able to explain as to why the earlier order dated 16.10.14 rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 read with Order 16, Rule 6 of CPC had remained unchallenged. Since Order 11, Rule 12 & 14 and Order 16, Rule 6 operate in two different spheres, in the opinion of the court the composite application filed by the petitioner as such was not maintainable, and therefore was rightly rejected by the trial court. It is also needless to say that it is the discretion of the court to summon the person who is not party to the suit, for production of the documents. The trial court having considered the facts of the case, has dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 16, Rule 6 of CPC vide the order dated 27.2.15, which being just and proper does not call for any interference by this court.

In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. By this order, the stay application also stands dismissed.