Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) The present petition directs challenge against order dated 12.09.2016 (Annexure P3) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ambala whereby application filed by the petitioners under Order 11 Rules 12, 14 and 15 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) seeking production of documents, has been dismissed.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Surjit Kaur and Amandeep Kaur, successors-in-interest of Bakshish Singh filed a suit for declaration claiming that they are absolute owners in possession of plotcum-built up house bearing No. 111-A, measuring 1200 square yards, situated at Village Mandhour, Tehsil and District Ambala. They have prayed for setting aside cancellation of allotment of the said plot being null and void, illegal and not binding upon the petitioners. The respondents filed the written statement and, in turn, raised objection qua maintainability of the suit with the averments that allotment of plot in question was cancelled after vigilance inquiry conducted in the year 1987.
(3.) The petitioners filed the instant application (Annexure P1) for discovery and production of documents, detailed in para 4 of the application. It is argued that the learned trial Court dismissed the application primarily by relying upon judgment Municipal Corporation Faridabad and another v. Dharambir and others, 2014 (1) CCC 702 (P &H) wherein it has been held that the provisions of Order 11, Rule 14 CPC for production of documents by opposite party are available only before framing of issues. It is vehemently argued that the judgment in Municipal Corporation, Faridabad's case (supra) is contrary to the provisions of Order 11, Rule 14 CPC that provides for production of documents at any time during pendency of suit relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right. It is further argued that the Court can deny the application only with regard to privileged documents under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In support of his contention, he has referred to judgment of this Court Sharvan Kumar v. Sumeet Kumar Garg, 2002 (3) PLR 666.;