TRUST MANDIR KAILA DEVI JI Vs. SUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -defendant under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dt. 30.07.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Karauli (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 3/2006, whereby the trial Court has directed the petitioner to produce the gift deed dt. 05.03.2005, which was in possession of the petitioner -defendant. The respondents -plaintiffs have filed the suit against the petitioner -defendant seeking permanent injunction with regard to the suit property, and also seeking cancellation of the gift deed dt. 05.03.2005. In the said suit, the respondents -plaintiffs had filed an application under Order XI Rule 12 & 14, calling upon the petitioner -defendant to produce the said gift deed, which application was replied to by the petitioner. The trial Court, thereafter, passed the impugned order, directing the petitioner to produce the said gift deed.

(2.) THE only contention raised by the learned counsel Mr. R.C. Joshi for the petitioner is that the document gift deed, which the petitioner is directed to produce, is not relevant to the controversy involved in the suit. According to him, the said document is an unregistered document, pertaining to the property dedicated to the deity and the same was not required to be registered in view of the decision of this Court in case of Moorti Shri Adeshwar Bhagwan v. Shimbhunath Singh, : 2007 (1) Western Law Cases 197. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that when the petitioner does not dispute that the document in question is in possession with the petitioner, and when the copy thereof is already produced by the petitioner in the suit, it could not be said that the trial Court had committed any error in directing the petitioner to produce the said document. It is also required to be noted that the respondents -defendants has filed the suit seeking cancellation of the said gift deed, and therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said document is not relevant cannot be countenanced. At this juncture, the Court is not required to examine the admissibility of the said document. Suffice it to say that since the petitioner is in the possession of the document, which is under challenge, it is required to produce the same in the trial Court. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.