Dipankar Baruah Vs Smti. Swapnali Baruah and 2 Ors.

SMTI. SWAPNALI BARUAH AND 2 ORS. D/O LATE DR. SASANKA BARUAH, W/O ACHINTYA MANI BHUYAN, R/O LACHIT NAGAR, LACHIT LANE, HOUSE NO. 22, P.O.- ULUBARI, P.S.PALTAN BAZAR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781007

¶10

2:SMTI BARNALEE BARUAH D/O LATE DR. SASANKA BARUAH W/O PRANAB BHARALI R/O JAIL ROAD SANKARDEV PATH NEAR SHIV MANDIR P.O. AND P.S.- JORHAT DIST- JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785001

¶11

3:SMTI MONALEE BARUAH D/O LATE DR. SASANKA BARUAH W/O PANKAJ SAHORIA P/R/A 12TH JANE STREET SHREWBURY MA 01545 UNITED STATES OF AMERIC

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MR. R S MISHRA

¶13

Page No.# 2/11

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : MR D SENAPATI(R1,2,3), DR. P AGARWAL(R1,2,3)

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 12.05.2026

¶18

Heard Mr. K. J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Senapati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶19

2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jorhat (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) in Title Suit No. 78/2022, whereby the petitioner was directed to produce the original rent agreements pertaining to the tenanted premises situated on the suit land on the next date fixed by the trial court.

¶20

3. The brief facts are that the petitioner and the respondents are brother and sisters, claiming to have jointly inherited the suit property from their deceased father. In respect of the said property, the respondent/plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 78/2022 seeking declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land, a preliminary decree for partition, and a declaration that they are entitled to ¾th share of the total rent proceeds allegedly received by the petitioner/defendant from July 2019 onwards. Along with the petitioner/defendant, other persons, including tenants occupying portions of the suit property and one Mohnish Singh, Secretary of Shiva Mandir, Shankardev Path, were arrayed as pro forma defendants.

¶21

Page No.# 3/11

¶22

4. Upon service of summons, the petitioner/defendant as well as the pro forma defendants entered appearance and filed their respective written statements. Thereafter, on 12.04.2024, the respondent/plaintiffs filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the petitioner/defendant to produce the original rental agreements executed with the tenants occupying the suit premises. The said application was registered as Petition No. 966/2024.

¶23

5. The petitioner/defendant filed a written objection to the said application. Upon consideration thereof, the trial court, by order dated 07.05.2025, allowed the application and directed the petitioner/defendant to produce the original rent agreements relating to the tenanted premises situated on the suit land. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been instituted.

¶24

6. Mr. K. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the trial court ought not to have allowed the application for production of the rental agreements, inasmuch as the said documents have no relevance to the reliefs sought in the suit. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on:

¶25

(i) M/s J.S. Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Damodar Rout , reported in AIR 1987 Orissa 207 ; (Orissa High Court)

¶26

(ii) Iman Ali & Ors. v. Abdul Mazid & Ors ., in CRP No. 118/2009. (Gauhati High Court).

¶27

7. Per contra, Mr. D. Senapati, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiffs, submits that the trial court, having exercised its discretion within the ambit of Order XI Rule 14 CPC, ought not to be interfered with in exercise of

¶28

Page No.# 4/11

¶29

supervisory jurisdiction. He contends that the trial court has correctly assessed the relevance of the documents sought to be produced in the context of the issues arising in the suit. Reliance is placed on the following decisions of the Delhi High Court:

¶30

(i) Naveen Jindal v. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. & Anr ., reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8209 ;

¶31

(ii) Ritu Kumar v. Tarun Chander Malik & Anr ., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3478 .

¶32

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. I have also considered the authorities cited at the Bar.

¶33

9. The application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC filed by the respondent/plaintiffs assumes significance in the context of the controversy involved in the present petition. The said petition read as under: -

¶34

“ A PETITION UNDER ORDER 11

¶35

RULE 14 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE OF THE CODE OF

¶36

CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR PASSING DIRECTIONS TO THE DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

¶37

For the Plaintiff

¶38

Most Respectfully Showeth,

¶39

1. That in the instant suit plaintiff has claimed partition of their share in ancestral land, recovery of vacant khash possession of their respective shares besides recovery of 34 the of the rent

¶40

Page No.# 5/11

¶41

proceeds received by the defendant from the joint ancestral schedule property.

¶42

2. That the defendant in his written statement has specifically admitted that he has rented out some business premises standing over the suit premise to different tenants.

¶43

3. That the plaintiff after enquiry from the Jorhat Municipal Board came to know that some shops are running business from the suit premise under the land lord-ship of defendant. That some of the name of such business premises are "Mandakini Enterprise", "Trade supply World", "Dipwandita Collections" etc. That besides these the defendant have been receiving rent from approximately more than 8 (Eight) numbers of tenants having business establishment over the schedule premise under landlord ship of defendant Including rented premise given to Mohnish Singh. It is submitted that the Plaintiff had enquire vide letter dated 8th September, 2023 to the Jorhat Municipal Board with regards to the rented premises. However, only trade licenses of the 3 (three) premises were provided to the Plaintiff. A bare perusal of the trade licenses would reveal that such premises were set up in the years i.e. 2020, 2022 and 2023 respectively. It is further submitted that the Defendant has entered Into the Deed of Agreement for rent dated 14th October, 2022 and 21 February, 2023 i.e. pursuant to filing of the captioned suit i.e. 14th September, 2022. Furthermore, the Defendant has not sought any prior permission from the Plaintiff(s) with regards to the above rented premises, despite the Plaintiff(s) having their names in the records of rights.

¶44

4. That though defendant rented out said shops illegally without the consent and approval of the plaintiffs but all the plaintiffs have full and equal right over the said business premises and over the rent earned from the said premises. Furthermore, it is submitted that Plaintiff No. 2, is currently unemployed and has multiple medical ailments. Further, Plaintiff No. 2 also has a daughter of age around 19(Nineteen) years old. Therefore, due to the pendency of the suit proceedings, Plaintiff No. 2 has not utilized the suit property for any other commercial purpose, however, to the complete shock and surprise of the Plaintiff(s), the Defendant has been using the suit property without any prior consent/ Information of the Plaintiff herein.

¶45

Page No.# 6/11

¶46

5. That under such circumstances to know the actual rent receiving by the defendant from the said business premises is essential for judicious disposal of the suit.

¶47

6. That under such circumstances learned court may kindly be pleased to direct the defendant to submit all the rent agreements the Defendant entered in to with the said tenants over the schedule premise along with a detail account of the rent that the Defendant is receiving per month from the said business establishments so that plaintiffs can get appropriate relief/ reliefs from the suit through this learned court.

¶48

7. That such rent agreement and on providing the monthly rent proceeds of the said establishments shall not prejudice the defendant, instead the same will help is effective and efficacious disposal of the suit.

¶49

8. That the said documents mark the basis and foundation of the entire matter and are thus missing which is crucial for the adjudication of the entire matter.

¶50

9. That with this application, the Plaintiff(s) seek direction by this Hon'ble Court to direct the Defendant to produce the Original Rental Agreements and the present application is prayed accordingly.

¶51

8. That this petition is filed bonafide in the interest of justice.”

¶52

10. It is also apposite to refer to the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the trial court.

¶53

“ 07.05.2025

¶54

Both sides are represented.

¶55

Today was fixed for N.O.

¶56

Perused case record. It appears that petition No. 966/24 filed U/O.XI r.14 R/W. Section 151 of CPC is pending for disposal.

¶57

Heard the learned counsels for both sides on the petition No.966/24.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has prayed

¶59

Page No.# 7/11

¶60

to direct the defendant to produce the original rent agreements of the tenanted premises situated at the suit property. From the plaint as well as the written statement, it is seen that the fact of renting out the suit property to different tenants is not disputed by any of the parties. The said fact is mentioned in para 12 of the plaint and para No.17 and 20 of the written statement by the defendant NO.1. It is admitted by the defendant in para 4 of the objection petition also.

¶61

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the said documents are relevant and necessary for proper disposal of the matter in view of the averments of the plaint as well as the relief claimed in para V and VI of the prayer portion.

¶62

On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that the plaintiffs' entitlement of the suit property will be decided only on trial. Only if the plaintiffs will be held as entitled to any share of the suit property, then only their right over the rent may accrue, that too will also be a point to be decided on trial. At this stage, plaintiffs' entitlement of the suit property has not arisen and hence, the prayer of the plaint in petition No.966/24 is to be rejected.

¶63

On perusal of the case record, it appears that plaintiffs have prayed for delivery of possession along with declaration of right, title and interest. The rent claimed under paragraph Nos.V and VI and the prayer portion of the plaint is in the form of mesne profit. If the plaintiffs' entitlement of the suit land/property is proved on of trial, then the question of delivery of possession of the suit property will come into question as a consequential relief. Question of mesne profit will also be in the same line. If all the reliefs will be decided one after another in separate proceedings, it will result into multiplicity of proceedings.

¶64

Thus for complete adjudication of the matter, determining the nature and amount of rent is also a relevant point in this suit. As such, to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and for complete adjudication of the matter, the petition No.966/24 is allowed.

¶65

Defendant is directed to produce the original rent agreements of the tenanted premises situated in the suit land on or before next date.

¶66

Page No.# 8/11

¶67

Fixing.23.6.25. for production of original rent agreements.”

¶68

11. The controversy in the present petition lies within a narrow compass. The question is whether the learned trial court committed any jurisdictional error in directing the petitioner/defendant to produce the original rental agreements pertaining to the tenanted portions of the suit property in exercise of power under Order XI Rule 14 CPC.

¶69

12. To appreciate the controversy, it would be apposite to notice Order XI Rule 14 CPC:

¶70

“ 14. Production of documents .—It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath, of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.”

¶71

13. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that the Court is empowered, at any stage during the pendency of the suit, to direct production of documents that are in the possession or power of a party, provided such documents relate to a matter in question in the suit. The expression “relating to any matter in question in such suit” is of significance. The jurisdiction under Order XI Rule 14 is not intended to permit a fishing or roving enquiry, nor can it be invoked for production of documents having no nexus with the controversy. At the same time, where the document bears a direct or reasonable connection with the issues arising for adjudication, the Court would be well within its jurisdiction in directing its production.

¶72

14. Examined in the factual context of the present case, the challenge raised by the petitioner does not merit acceptance. The suit instituted by the

¶73

Page No.# 9/11

¶74

respondent/plaintiffs is not confined merely to a declaration of title and partition of the ancestral property. The plaintiffs have also specifically claimed entitlement to a share in the rental proceeds allegedly received by the petitioner/defendant from portions of the suit property let out to different tenants. In the written statement as well, the fact that parts of the suit property have been rented out is not in dispute. Once receipt of rent from the suit property forms part of the controversy and a monetary claim relatable thereto has been expressly laid in the suit, the documents embodying the terms of such tenancy and the quantum of rent payable cannot be said to be extraneous or irrelevant to the adjudication.

¶75

15. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the question of entitlement of the plaintiffs would arise only upon adjudication of title, and therefore production of the documents at this stage is premature, is misconceived. Procedural law is designed to facilitate effective adjudication and not to compartmentalise the trial in a manner that unnecessarily fragments the proceedings. If documents relevant to issues that arise in the suit are already within the possession or power of one party, there is no legal embargo preventing the Court from directing their production merely because the final determination of entitlement remains pending. Acceptance of such a contention would defeat the very object of procedural efficiency and may lead to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings.

¶76

16. The reasoning assigned by the learned trial court cannot be said to suffer from perversity. The trial court has correctly taken note of the fact that the claim relating to rent proceeds is integrally connected with the reliefs sought in the suit. The direction for production does not adjudicate any substantive right

¶77

Page No.# 10/11

¶78

of the parties, nor does it conclusively determine the entitlement of the plaintiffs. It merely facilitates production of material that may assist the Court in effective and complete adjudication of the controversy.

¶79

17. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner do not advance his case in the peculiar facts of the present matter, inasmuch as the present case concerns documents directly relatable to a pleaded claim arising from the very suit property. Conversely, the principle that discovery and production may be directed where the documents bear nexus with matters in issue would support the approach adopted by the trial court.

¶80

18. It is equally well settled that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is not intended to function as an appellate jurisdiction. Interference is warranted only where the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, committed manifest perversity, or occasioned grave miscarriage of justice. A discretionary procedural order, passed upon consideration of relevance and necessity of documents for adjudication, ordinarily does not warrant interference unless shown to be patently arbitrary or legally unsustainable.

¶81

19. In the present case, this Court finds no such infirmity. The trial court exercised jurisdiction vested in it by law, applied the correct statutory test, considered the nexus between the documents sought and the issues arising in the suit, and assigned cogent reasons for its conclusion. No jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or perversity is demonstrated warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶82

Page No.# 11/11

¶83

20. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of merit, stands

¶84

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶85

JUDGE

¶86

Comparing Assistant

Dipankar Baruah v. Smti. Swapnali Baruah and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipankar Baruah v. Smti. Swapnali Baruah and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hasmat Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Guwahati Development Department Vs Punjab National Bank and 3 Ors.

Md. Noor Hussain and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S. Hotel Brideway and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Bikash Kumar More Vs Ashok K.K. Meena and 3 Ors.

Ms Associated Industries Assam Spinning Unit Vs Mr Sumit Sattawan IAS