BACHAN KAURMANJIT KAUR Vs. KULDIP KAURMARINA JAYNE SQUIRES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order dtd. 26/10/2021 vide which the application filed by defendant No.1-petitioner under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for production of the documents has been disposed off.

(2.) The grievance of the defendant No.1-petitioner in the present case is that there are certain documents at Sr. Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 in possession of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and that she has refused to produce the same.

(3.) Learned counsel for defendant No.1-petitioner has relied upon Union of India Vs. M/s Kanhiya Dhaliwal Developers and Others [CR No.3868 of 2015 decided on 18/12/2015], Onkar Singh Vs. Ravinder Malhotra [2013 (36) RCR (Civil) 684], Desa Singh through LRs Vs. Sukhraj Kaur and Ors. [2019 (2) PLR 715], Sharvan Kumar Vs. Sumeet Kumar Garg [2002 (3) PLR 666], The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Prop. Ajit Cotton Ginning Pressing Dall and Steel Rolling Mills [2013 (1) RCR (Civil) 506] to contend that while deciding an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, the Court has to record its satisfaction regarding the necessity and relevance of the documents.