Raghuveer Singh Died Through Lrs Sanjeev Singh Sikarwar vs. Shyam Bihari Agrawal

Held

The Court held that the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for production of documents. The reasoning was that the petitioner failed to provide any supporting material along with the application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 CPC. The Court noted that merely mentioning the existence of a GST registration or filing an RTI application does not constitute sufficient material to compel the production of documents. The Court relied on the principle laid down in Uttam Jana (supra), which states that a party cannot use Order 11 Rule 12 CPC to seek directions to create or search for non-existing documents, and that an iota of material must be provided in support of the claim for production. The Court also referred to the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as per Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra), and found no grounds for interference with the trial court's order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, a defendant in a suit for eviction, sought to produce documents related to a business allegedly run by the plaintiff's son, M/s Shyam Baba Trading Company. The petitioner had previously attempted to obtain this information under the Right to Information Act, but it was denied as private documents. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for the production of these documents. The trial court rejected this application, citing considerable delay and a lack of supporting material. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the trial court's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for production of documents under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 CPC, considering the petitioner's claim that the plaintiff's son is operating a business, M/s Shyam Baba Trading Company, which negates the plaintiff's claimed bonafide requirement for the property? The petitioner argued that the plaintiff's son has a GST number and is conducting business, and that the application was filed after the RTI request was denied. The petitioner contended that the information sought was crucial to disprove the plaintiff's bonafide need. The revenue or State did not argue on this point as it was a civil suit matter. The respondent (plaintiff) argued that the prime condition for seeking production of documents is the existence of supporting material, and the application cannot be used to search for non-existent documents. The respondent relied on the case of Uttam Jana vs Indian institute of Social Welfare and others.