Allowed¶29

Ananta S/O Digambar Diwanji v. Ashish S/O Yashwant Mashankar

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XI Rule 12 – Production of documents

Bombay HC11 Nov 2025WP/1334/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; Writ Petition No. 1334 of 2025 (neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:13672); Ananta Digambar Diwanji v. Dr. Ashish Yashwant Mashankar; decided 03-12-2025 by Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J. Keywords: Order XI Rule 12 CPC; production of documents; direction to defendant; specific performance of contract; Exhibit 39; personal documents; account statements and passbooks; M/s Raghukul Construction; custody of documents alone insufficient; quashing of trial Court order dated 08.10.2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the trial Court below application at Exhibit 39 quashed and set aside; the plaintiff's application at Exhibit 39 rejected; Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. ¶29

Ananta S/O Digambar Diwanji vs Ashish S/O Yashwant Mashankar — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court could direct the defendant to produce documents under Order XI Rule 12 CPC merely because they were in his custody, absent pleadings showing their need or relevance to the controversy in the suit for specific performance.

¶26

Court's answer

There are no pleadings on record showing the need or relevance of the documents sought to be produced; although the documents are in the defendant's custody, production could be directed only if necessary for deciding the actual controversy involved in the suit.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The documents sought are the personal documents of the defendant, and without any justifiable reason he cannot be compelled to file them on record.

¶26

Key takeaways

Parties have to prove their case on the basis of their pleadings and evidence; hence the impugned order directing the defendant to produce the documents mainly because they are in his custody does not stand to the scrutiny of law.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XI Rule 12 — Production of documents — In a suit for specific performance, the trial Court allowed the plaintiff's application (Exhibit 39) at the evidence stage directing the defendant to produce his agreement with a builder and bank account statements/passbooks (including accounts held jointly with, and in the name of, his wife) merely because the documents were in the defendant's custody, while itself observing that the documents had no direct concern with the suit — Held: there being no pleadings showing the need or relevance of the documents, personal documents of a defendant cannot be compelled to be produced without any justifiable reason; parties must prove their case on the basis of their own pleadings and evidence; an order for production founded solely on custody of the documents does not stand to the scrutiny of law — Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 08.10.2024 quashed and set aside; application at Exhibit 39 rejected; no order as to costs.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:13672

¶2

0312WP1334-25.odt

¶3

1 Judgment

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1334 OF 2025

¶6

Ananta Digambar Diwanji, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o 81, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur.

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Dr. Ashish Yashwant Mashankar, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner, R/o Dr.Mashankar Hospital, In front of Municipal Corporation School No.5, Belpura Road, Rajapeth, Amravati – 444 606.

¶10

RESPONDENT

¶11

Shri Nitin Bhisikar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Daga, counsel for the respondent.

¶12

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

¶13

DATE : DECEMBER 03, 2025

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The petitioner takes an exception to the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner-defendant in the suit to produce documents as sought for by the plaintiff.

¶17

The respondent has filed the suit for specific performance of contract. In the said suit, at the stage of evidence, the plaintiff filed an application at Exhibit 39 seeking direction to the defendant to produce certain documents in the nature of agreement between the defendant with

¶18

a builder and account statements and passbooks of his accounts. This application was opposed by the defendant however the trial Court by order dated 08.10.2024 allowed the said application.

¶19

0312WP1334-25.odt

¶20

2 Judgment

¶21

The primary reason for allowing the said application as observed in the impugned order is that documents are in custody of the defendant and the same can be directed to be produced in view of Order XI Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’).

¶22

Shri N.R. Bhisikar, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there is no foundation in the plaint and there are no contentions about any of the documents sought to be produced and only because the documents are in the custody of the defendant, the same cannot be directed to be produced. He submitted that although the Court is empowered to direct the parties to produce documents under Order XI Rule 12 of the Code, the need and relevance of the documents for deciding the controversy has to be appreciated. He submitted that by the impugned order, the trial Court has specifically observed in paragraph 6 that though the documents have no direct concern with the suit but the documents are relevant for deciding the real question in controversy between the parties. He submitted that the documents demanded by the plaintiff are the personal documents of the defendant and his wife and are not at all relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the suit for specific performance of the contract.

¶23

As against this Shri Alok Daga, learned counsel for the respondent justified the impugned order by inviting attention to the pleadings in the written statement and submitted that the defendant has raised contradictory pleas and therefore the documents are necessary to be brought on record

¶24

0312WP1334-25.odt 3 Judgment

¶25

to ascertain the factual position. He also submitted that the defendant has suppressed the documents and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the documents are produced on record.

¶26

While considering the controversy, it has to be seen that the application for direction to produce the documents is filed by the plaintiff after the evidence in the suit has started. By this application, the plaintiff had sought for direction to the defendant to produce the agreement between the defendant and M/s Raghukul Construction Pvt Ltd. executed in 202021, the account statements and passbooks of all the accounts held by the defendant in his individual name as well as in joint name with his wife so also the account statements and passbooks of the accounts held by his wife Darshana Anant Diwanji. It has to be noted that the suit filed by the respondent is for specific performance of contract with respect to the agreement dated 06.02.2021. There are no pleadings on record showing the need or relevance of the documents sought to be produced. Although these documents are in the custody of the defendant, it is crucial to note, whether production of these documents is necessary for deciding the actual controversy involved in the suit. Pertinently, the trial Court has itself observed in the impugned order that those documents have no direct concern with the suit, however, has directed its production by observing vaguely that they are necessary for deciding the real controversy. It has to be noted that the documents sought to be produced are the personal documents of the defendant and without any justifiable reason he cannot be compelled to file those documents on record.

¶27

0312WP1334-25.odt 4 Judgment

¶28

The contention of the counsel for the respondent that in view of the contradictory stand taken by the petitioner-defendant in the written statement, the documents are necessary to falsify his defence, is not appealing because the defendant himself would be put to disadvantageous position in case he fails to produce any relevant documents. Further, contention of the respondent that there will be no prejudice to the petitioner in producing the documents on record also does not appear convincing since the documents sought to be produced are the personal documents of the defendant and do not appear to be necessary for deciding the controversy involved in the suit. It is trite law that the parties have to prove their case on the basis of their pleadings and evidence. As such, the impugned order directing the defendant to produce the documents mainly because they are in the custody of the defendant does not stand to the scrutiny of law.

¶29

Having regard to the above mentioned factual and legal aspects, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the trial Court below application at Exhibit 39 is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the plaintiff at Exhibit 39 is rejected. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶30

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶31

APTE

¶32

Signed by: Apte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/12/2025 16:11:31

Ananta S/O Digambar Diwanji v. Ashish S/O Yashwant Mashankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananta S/O Digambar Diwanji v. Ashish S/O Yashwant Mashankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chatrapalsingh S/O Parasramsingh Chandel vs Surendra (Nanabhau) Sharawan Gawli

Avani Infrastructure, Thr. Managing/Authorized Partner, Vijay F. Bhattad and Ors. vs Ramesh S/O. Kisanlal Taldar and Others

Jayant Keshav Deshpande vs Rekhlal Shamdev Thakre

Latabai Murlidhar Choudhari and Others Vs Prashant Vasantrao Wankhede and Another

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai through Its Manager Vs Smt. Sharda Wd/O Ramesh Patil and Others

Hemant Sureshrao Shirpure vs Honble Minister, Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.