KALPANA ROY Vs. DHAMALA AUTOWORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner praying for setting aside the impugned Order dated 13.09.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge-II (Junior Division), East Sikkim at Gangtok, rejecting an Application filed by the Petitioner under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter 'CPC').

(2.) Briefly stated, the Petitioners case is that they had instituted a Money Suit No.22 of 2013, which is now before the learned Civil Judge-II (Junior Division), East Sikkim at Gangtok, for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,86,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and eighty-six thousand) only, on account of the death of the husband of Petitioner No.1 and the father of the Petitioner No.2, who was employed in the garage of the Respondent No.2 and had died in the course of his employment. That, the Petitioners filed certain documents along with the Plaint to prove their case, one such document being a 'Milap Patra' (Compromise Deed) dated 06.08.2013, executed by the Respondent No.2 admitting the claims of the Petitioners. It is alleged that the original of the said document is in the possession of the Respondent No.2, thus, only the photocopy could be filed. Hence, the Application under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to produce the original document. The Respondents denied the averments made by the Petitioner contending, inter alia, that in the first instance, the Respondent No.2 was not even a signatory to the alleged 'Milap Patra' and he is ignorant of the whereabouts of such a document. After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the Application.

(3.) Before this Court, it is prayed that as the Respondents deny being in possession of the original 'Milap Patra', the Petitioners be allowed to file the photocopy of the said document, which may be tested during the evidence of the parties.