Disposed¶29

Smt. Savita Niyogi v. Sudeep Niyogi

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jun 2024WP227/385/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discovery and production of documents; Order XI Rules 12 & 13 CPC; Section 30 CPC; affidavit of documents/non-possession; certified copy of patta/lease deed; Civil Suit No.19-A/2013; Eighteenth Civil Judge Class-2 Raipur; direction not to be given effect; writ petition WP227; High Court of Chhattisgarh; Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.; 19.06.2024; NAFR-marked order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with observations: petitioner/defendant No.1 to file an affidavit clarifying that the Original Patta (lease deed) granted in favour of her husband is not in her possession; the other direction in the impugned order (bar on future production of the documents) shall not be given effect to; a copy of the order to be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance. ¶29

Smt. Savita Niyogi Vs Sudeep Niyogi — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

What orders should flow under Section 30 and Order XI Rules 12 & 13 CPC regarding the documents related to the suit property, given that defendant No.1 claims the documents are not in her possession and the plaintiff can obtain certified copies. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

This Court observes that the plaintiff is able to obtain certified copy of the relevant documents as and when required.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner/defendant No.1 has herself stated in her reply that the document (Original Patta/lease deed granted in favour of her husband) is not in her possession, she shall file an affidavit to clarify that such document is not in her possession.

¶28

Key takeaways

The other direction given in the impugned order concerning filing of affidavit shall not be given effect to — i.e., per ¶15, the direction/observation that she will not be permitted to produce those documents for evidence or other use in future is not to be enforced.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.) disposed of a writ petition (WP227 No. 385 of 2024, decided 19.06.2024) challenging the order dated 26.02.2024 of the Eighteenth Civil Judge, Class-2, Raipur in Civil Suit No.19-A/2013, whereby the plaintiff's application under Order XI Rules 12 & 13 read with Section 30 CPC for production of documents related to the suit property was dismissed, but the petitioner/defendant No.1 was directed to file an affidavit of non-possession and was effectively barred from producing those documents in future. Referring to Section 30 and Order XI Rules 12 & 13 CPC, the Court observed that the plaintiff is able to obtain certified copies of the relevant documents as and when required, and since defendant No.1 had herself stated in her reply that the Original Patta (lease deed) granted in favour of her late husband was not in her possession, she was directed to file an affidavit to that effect; however, the other direction in the impugned order (that she would not be permitted to produce those documents for evidence or other use in future) was held not to be given effect to.

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WP227 No. 385 of 2024

¶4

Smt. Savita Niyogi W/o Late Subir Kumar Niyogi Aged About 78 Years R/o Devendra Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.), Present R/o - H. No. 1641, Gali No. 4, Near I.T.I. Office, Ward No. 31, Shankar Nagar, Bindrawangarh, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.),...(Defendant No. 1) --- Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sudeep Niyogi S/o Late Subir Kumar Niyogi Aged About 37 Years R/o 9 Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur, Tah. And District Raipur (C.G.),... (Plaintiff)

¶7

Gulbir Singh Bhatia S/o Late Gulab Singh Bhatia Aged About 70 Years R/o Civil Lines Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.),...(Defendant No. 2)

¶8

State Of Chhattisgasrh Through District Collector, Raipur (C.G.), (Defendant No. 3).

¶9

Sandeep Niyogi S/o Late Subir Kumar Niyogi Aged About 54 Years R/o Devendra Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.). (Defendant No. 4) --- Respondents.

¶10

(Cause title downloaded from CIS periphery)

¶11

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Adv. For State : Mr. Sachhidanand Yadav, PL.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶13

19.06.2024

¶14

This petition has been filed against the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned Eighteenth Civil Judge, Class-2, Raipur in Civil Suit No.19-A/2013, whereby, application preferred by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 u/O 11 Rule 12 & 13 of the Civil Procedure Code for producing the documents related to suit property was dismissed, however, the petitioner/defendant No.1 was directed to file an affidavit before the next date of hearing to the effect that she is not having those documents in her possession and also observed

¶15

that she will not be permitted to produce those documents for evidence or other use in future.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

¶17

available with the petition.

¶18

The power to order discovery and the like provided under Section 30 of the CPC is relevant with the provision of Order 11, Rule 12 & 13.

¶19

The relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder:-

¶20

“Section 30. Power to order discovery and the like .- Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, at any time, either of its own motion or on the application of any party,-

¶21

(a) make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories, the admission of documents and facts, and the discovery, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents or other material objects producible as evidence;

¶22

(b) issue summonses to persons whose attendance is required either to give evidence or to produce documents or such other objects as aforesaid;

¶23

(c) order any fact to be proved by affidavit.

¶24

Order XI, Rule 12 & 13

¶25

- Rule 12. Application for discovery of documents Any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to the Court for an Order directing any other party to any suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question therein. On the hearing of such application the Court may either refuse or adjourn the same, if satisfied that such discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the suit, or make such Order, either generally or limited to certain classes of documents, as may, in its discretion be thought fit:

¶26

Provided that discovery shall not be Ordered when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.

¶27

Rule 13. Affidavit of documents- The affidavit to be made by a party against whom such Order as is mentioned in the last preceding rule has been made, shall specify which (if any) of the documents therein mentioned he objects to produce, and it shall be in Form No. 5 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require.”

¶28

In view of the aforesaid provisions and considering the facts of the case, this Court observes that the plaintiff is able to obtain certified copy of the relevant documents as and when required. Further, the petitioner/defendant No.1 herself has stated in her reply that such document is not in her possession, therefore, she shall also file an affidavit in this regard to clarify that such document i.e. Original Patta (lease deed) which was granted in favor of her husband is not her possession. However, the other direction given in the impugned order concerning filing of affidavit shall not given effect to.

¶29

With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.

¶30

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶33

Ajad

Smt. Savita Niyogi v. Sudeep Niyogi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savita Niyogi v. Sudeep Niyogi

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

Similar cases

Balmati Vs Gopal

Krishnadatt Tiwari Vs Mahendra Pratap Singh

Md. Islamuddin Badgujar Vs Smt. Pratibha Gupta

G.M.,Korba Super Thermal Power Vs Sunil Ashtakar and Ors.

Mukesh Singh @ Panchar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhuneshwar Prasad Rajwade Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.