DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. SHATRUGAN PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner - original defendant against order passed by 11 th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara dtd. 23/10/2018 below Exh.60 whereby the petitioner-defendant prayed for direction against the plaintiff to produce certain documents referred to in the said application, came to be rejected by the learned Judge.

(2.) Mr.Nimit Y. Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioner-defendant submitted that the documents, which is sought for under the application are in possession of the plaintiff and therefore he may be directed to produce the same. So far as other document referred to in the application is concerned, since it is public document, he may be able to get the copies thereof but the documents and accounts which, claimed to be in possession of the plaintiff by the defendant, should be directed to be produced. Therefore, he has submitted that order impugned is required to be interfered with and this petition is required to be allowed.

(3.) Having heard Mr.Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned advocate for the respondent, it is clear that not only the examination in-chief but cross examination of the witness of the plaintiff is also over. Furthermore, the documents, which are claimed by the petitioner-defendant, as referred to in the impugned order para 2.1, are not in the custody of the plaintiffs and the order of Collector, which is demanded production by the plaintiffs being public document, he can get the same and produce it before the Court if at all he wants. As recorded in para 2.2. of the impugned order, even in the cross examination of the witness of the plaintiff it is very clearly stated that papers pertaining to accounts which petitioner-defendant is asking for is not in their possession which was declared during the cross examination also and therefore, any consequence of non production, if at all the petitioner-defendant is able to prove that is in their possession, the respondent-plaintiff have to face. However, when party claims that he is not in possession thereof, the Court cannot direct to produce the same. Hence, this petition cannot be entertained more particularity while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the Court has already exercised the jurisdiction in a perfectly legal and justified manner and therefore, this petition is rejected. Notice discharged.