Dismissed

M.Jaya Centenary v. M.a.Praveen Kumar

Telangana HC11 Nov 2011CRP/4361/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application seeking production of society documents by a respondent who was not in possession. The High Court held that ordering a non-employee party to produce documents held by society management under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC is inappropriate if they assert non-possession.

What did the court decide?

The petition for revision was dismissed but the petitioner was granted liberty to apply to summon the management for production of documents.

M.Jaya Centenary Vs M.a.Praveen Kumar — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4361 OF 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This is a revision filed against the order dated 2.9.2011 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in I.A.No.802 of 2011 in GOP No.402 of 2009.

¶4

The revision petitioner, who is the mother of the 2^nd respondent, filed the above OP for appointing her as guardian for minor child-M. Edward Joel Sam, who is her grandson, on the ground that respondent No.2, who is the mother of minor child Joel Sam, filed M.O.P.No.38 of 2008 against the 1^st respondent for divorce and the same was ended with compromise before Lok Adalat and as per the terms of the compromise, the minor child shall be under the custody of the 1^st respondent-father and the 1^st respondent shall not marry again, but the 1^st respondent married again and his mother also died in the year 2002 and nobody is there to look after the minor child and further, he is an unemployee.

¶5

The matter has been coming up for the evidence on behalf of the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent filed chief-affidavit as R.W.1 stating that he is a Treasurer of Good Shepherd Evangelical Child Care and Social Service Association and he is getting Rs.20,000/from the society. At this juncture, the petitioner herein filed the application viz., I.A.No.802 of 2011 under Order 11 Rule 14 and Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to cause production of documents viz., Bye-Laws of Good Shepherd Evangelical Child Care and Social Service Association; Acquittance

¶6

register for the periods during which the 1^st respondent is working in the said Association. The 1^st respondent filed a counter stating that the documents referred to above are not in his possession.

¶7

Taking into consideration the assertion of the 1^st respondent, the Court below dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision.

¶8

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶9

The petitioner filed the above application seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to cause production of documents referred to above. It is the case of the 1^st respondent that he is working as treasurer in Good Shepherd Evangelical Child Care and Social Service Association and he is not in possession of the aforesaid documents.

¶10

As per Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC, 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. But however, when it is the specific case of the party that he is not in possession of the documents and those are in possession of the management, it is not desirable to direct him to produce the same.

¶11

In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that order under revision does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to file an application to summon the management, who is in possession of documents referred to above, for production of the same. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move an application for the purpose stated above, if the law permits.

¶13

__________________ Justice N.V. Ramana

¶14

Dated:11.11.2011 Nn.

¶15

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶16

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4361 OF 2011

¶17

11.11.2011

¶18

M.Jaya Centenary v. M.a.Praveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jaya Centenary v. M.a.Praveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghattu Seetanna (died per L.Rs.) Vs Ghattu Vanajamma

Duguri Sivaramulu Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries

C. Kamakshi Vs M.Sarojini

T.B.Ayyappan Vs Smt D.N. Sharadha

Mr.a.C.Krishnaswamy Vs Mr.C.Varadarajn

M.Venkataramana Vs Sri Love Agarwal