CPC | Relevance Of Documents Primary Consideration Before Allowing Order XI Rule 12 Application: J&K High Court

Justice Sindhu Sharma clarified that any document shedding light on the proceedings becomes pertinent, contributing to the understanding of the matter in dispute.

“It is sufficient for discovery, if the document is relevant for the purpose of throwing light on the matter in controversy. The only record that the Court before granting an application under Order-XI Rule-12 CPC is required to consider the relevancy of the documents particularly when a specific document is sought to be discovered by a party and whether the document is really required for effective disposal”, the court explained."

The case involves a petition challenging an order passed by the City Judge, Jammu, which allowed the respondent's application under Order XI Rules 12 & 14.

Order-XI Rule-12 and Rule-14 govern the discovery and production of documents in civil cases. While Rule 12 allows parties to request disclosure of relevant documents from the opponent in a civil suit. Rule 14 grants the court the authority to order the production of these documents, ensuring transparency and fairness in legal proceedings.

The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that a will executed by the late father Krishan Kumar Gupta, was illegal, inoperative, null and void, and further claiming ownership of certain properties and business-related rights. The plaintiff had submitted various documents as evidence, and an amendment to the plaint was allowed.

The defendant filed an application under Order XI Rule 12 & 14 requesting the production of the original documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The defendant contended that some documents appeared forged or fabricated.

The Trial Court allowed the defendant's application, directing the plaintiff to produce the original documents. The plaintiff challenged this order, asserting that the Trial Court had not followed the correct procedure under Order XI Rule 14.

The petitioner contended that the Trial Court exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity, causing a failure of justice.

Justice Sharma emphasized the critical role of document discovery in legal proceedings and observed that the pivotal consideration before granting an application under Order-XI Rule-12 CPC is the relevance of the documents to the matter in dispute.

Deliberating on the intent and object of these provisions the bench added,

“These provisions are based on sound reasons, the object of the Rule is to apprise the defendant regarding foundations of the petitioner‟s claim and also to exclude production of the documents of a doubtful nature at belated stage. All such documents which the plaintiff intends to rely on oath, which are in his possession or power, can be directed to be produced”.

The Court determined that the original documents were necessary for effective adjudication of the case, given that the plaintiff relied on them.

“The plaintiff is relying upon documents in support of his claim, he has to enter the documents in a list and produce in Court when the plaint is presented and if the same are not in his possession, he may state in whose possession, they are”, the bench reasoned.

The Court held that the procedure under Order XI Rule 14 CPC was directory rather than mandatory, and the Trial Court had not overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the production of these documents.

Further, it was observed that the High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 are intended to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals stay within the bounds of their authority and do not overstep their jurisdiction. 

The power under Article 227 is discretionary, and it does not confer an absolute right upon a litigant to invoke this jurisdiction. Article 227 allows the High Court to intervene when there is a grave injustice or a failure of justice due to a subordinate court's gross dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of power.

In this context, the Court made it clear that the order of the Trial Court, directing the production of certain original documents in the case, did not fall within the scope of grave injustice or overstepping of jurisdiction that would warrant the exercise of Article 227 powers. 

As such, the bench declined its intervention under Article 227 and accordingly dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Rajan Gupta V/s Manoj Gupta

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 271

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment