AI Thinking...

Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN VS VINAY KUMAR G. B. ...

Checking relevance for Periyammal (Dead) through LRs. VS V. Rajamani...

Checking relevance for M. L. Sethi VS R. P. Kapur...

1972 0 Supreme(SC) 326 : Under Order 11, Rule 12 of the CPC, a party may be required to produce documents demanded by the other party, even if those documents are against the respondent''''s interest. The rule allows the Court to order discovery on oath of documents in the possession or power of a party relating to any matter in question in the suit. The respondent is bound to make an affidavit disclosing all such documents, including those that may be adverse to their case. The Court may order production for inspection, and the party may object to production on grounds such as privilege, but only after the affidavit is filed. The relevance of documents is not limited to those admissible in evidence; any document that throws light on the matter in controversy is relevant, even if it is not admissible. Therefore, the respondent is liable to produce documents demanded under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC, even if they are against their interest, unless a valid objection (e.g., privilege) is raised at the appropriate stage.Checking relevance for Hardesh Ores Pvt. LTD. VS Hede and Company...

Checking relevance for Union Of India VS Manager, Jain And Associates...

Checking relevance for P. Purushottam Reddy VS Pratap Steels LTD. ...

Checking relevance for Agra Electric Supply Company LTD. VS Labour Court, Meerut...

Checking relevance for Bachan Kaur @ Manjit Kaur VS Kuldip Kaur @ Marina Jayne Squires...

Checking relevance for Gaurav Garg vs Girdhar Gopal Gupta...

Gaurav Garg vs Girdhar Gopal Gupta - Delhi (2022)

: A party cannot be compelled to produce documents that are not in their possession, even if the documents are adverse to them. The court held that respondents cannot be directed to produce documents they claim are not in their power and possession, and that an adverse inference may be drawn at trial only if it is found that the non-production was willful.Checking relevance for Hindustan Zinc Ltd. VS Durha Construction Pvt. Ltd. ...

Checking relevance for Jan Shiksha Prasar Samiti VS Gunanand Dhani...

2023 0 Supreme(UK) 406 : Yes, the respondent is liable to produce documents demanded by the petitioner/defendant under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC, even if the documents are against the respondent. The court held that the respondent''''s failure to comply with the order to file documents directed by the trial court under Order 11 Rule 12 (as part of discovery proceedings) led to the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution under Order 11 Rule 21 of CPC. The court emphasized that the obligation to produce documents under discovery is not waived simply because the documents may be adverse to the party''''s position, and that the respondent''''s attempt to evade compliance by claiming lack of possession after the revision was dismissed was a ''''trick'''' to circumvent court orders. The court further noted that the documents sought were central to the core issue of the case, reinforcing the necessity of compliance regardless of their adverse nature.Checking relevance for Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs Durha Construction Pvt. Ltd....

Checking relevance for Subhash Chandra Rathi VS Temple Board, Nathdwara...

Checking relevance for Shyamlal S/o Motilal Rathi VS Temple Board Nathdwara...

2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 497 : Under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC, a party may apply to the court for an order directing another party to make discovery on oath of documents in their possession or power relating to any matter in question. However, the court may refuse such discovery if it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. In this case, the petitioners failed to demonstrate the relevance of the documents they sought, and the court held that discovery was not necessary because the documents were not related to the suit property and were instead related to another property. Therefore, the respondent is not liable to produce documents demanded under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC if the documents are not relevant to the matter in question or if their production is not necessary for a fair disposal of the suit.Checking relevance for Durga Prasad VS Parveen...

Checking relevance for M. P. S. R. T. C. VS RAMCHANDRA...

Checking relevance for Union Of India VS Im Havillar/clerk Sc Bagari...

Checking relevance for Vipan Sodhi VS Kola Ram...

Checking relevance for MAJ RETD SUKESH BEHL VS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N. V. ...

Checking relevance for BENNET COLEMAN AND CO. LTD. VS JANAKI BALLAV PATNAIK...

1988 0 Supreme(Ori) 187 : Under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC, a party may be directed to make discovery of documents in their possession or power relating to any matter in question in the suit. However, the party against whom such an order is made is not bound to produce the documents unless a separate order for production is passed. The court emphasized that the right to file an affidavit objecting to the production of documents under Rule 13 of Order 11 CPC cannot be taken away, and it remains open to the respondent to object to the production of documents, particularly those disclosing sensitive information such as remuneration, even if discovery has been ordered. The court clarified that the impugned order did not prohibit the respondents from filing such an affidavit, and they may object to the production of documents, including those that are against their interest, and the court may then pass appropriate orders based on the objections raised.

AI Overview...

Liability to Produce Documents under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC - The provisions primarily concern discovery of documents in a party’s possession, power, or control that are relevant to the suit. The Court may direct a party to discover such documents upon application, and the party is liable to produce documents within their custody or control if they are relevant and not privileged. Several sources clarify that documents against the Respondent (i.e., documents in their possession or control) must be produced if they are relevant to the case ["2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2179"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1263"], ["2023 0 Supreme(UK) 406"], ["2023 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4316"], ["2024 0 Supreme(MP) 670"].
Documents Against the Respondent - When the documents demanded are against the Respondent (i.e., not in their possession or control), the Respondent is generally not liable to produce them under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC. The courts have emphasized that only documents within the Respondent’s custody or control are subject to production ["2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1263"], ["2023 0 Supreme(UK) 406"].
Order 11 Rule 14 CPC and Relevance - Under Order 11 Rule 14, all relevant documents in the possession or control of the party must be produced, and relevance is a key criterion. The courts have held that relevance, not mere possession, determines production obligations. If documents are misplaced or not in the Respondent’s custody, they are not obligatory to produce ["2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2179"], ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1397"], ["2023 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4316"].
Exceptions and Court’s Discretion - Courts may exercise inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to allow production of documents even if not explicitly covered under Order 11, especially if their production is necessary for justice. However, mere oversight or inadvertence does not constitute reasonable cause for non-production ["2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 1556"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1163"].
Previous Applications and Court Orders - Previous applications seeking production of documents were often allowed if the documents were in the possession or control of the Respondent or if relevance was established. When documents are not in custody or control, courts tend to dismiss such applications ["2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2179"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1263"], ["2024 0 Supreme(MP) 670"].

Analysis and Conclusion:The Respondent is liable to produce documents demanded by the Plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC only if those documents are in their possession, power, or control and are relevant to the case. Documents against the Respondent (i.e., not in their custody/control) are not obligatory to be produced. Courts have consistently distinguished between documents in possession and those outside the Respondent’s control, emphasizing relevance and custody as key criteria. Therefore, unless the documents are within the Respondent’s control and relevant, they are not liable to produce them under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC.

References:- 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2179, 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1263, 2023 0 Supreme(UK) 406, 2023 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4316, 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 670, 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1163, 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 1556

Producing Documents in Partition Suits Under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC When Not in Possession

Order 11 Rule 12 CPC: Documents Not in Possession in Partition Suits

In partition suits under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), disputes often intensify when a defendant states in their written statement that they are ready to purchase the plaintiff's share. This scenario raises questions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC regarding judgment on admissions. However, plaintiffs frequently demand supporting documents during discovery, leading to debates on obligations under Order XI Rule 12 CPC. A key issue emerges: Must a party produce documents not in their possession or power? This blog examines the legal principles, case laws, and practical implications.

The Core Legal Principle: No Obligation for Documents Outside Possession

The main legal finding is clear: The respondent is not legally obliged to produce documents that are not in their possession or power, even if such documents are demanded by the plaintiff under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC

Gaurav Garg vs Girdhar Gopal Gupta - Delhi (2022)

Order 11, Rule 12 CPC allows any party to apply for discovery of documents which are or have been in his possession or power relating to matters in question. The phrase in his possession or power is pivotal—it limits the duty strictly to documents under the party's control 1988 0 Supreme(Ori) 187. Mere relevance does not trigger production if the documents are unavailable.

Key Points from Judicial Precedents

A party cannot be compelled to produce documents they do not possess or control
Gaurav Garg vs Girdhar Gopal Gupta - Delhi (2022)
.
Relevance must be established, but demand alone fails if documents are outside possession 1988 0 Supreme(Ori) 187.
Credible assertions of non-possession suffice to deny production; willful non-production may invite adverse inference 1988 0 Supreme(Ori) 187.

In partition suits, where a defendant offers to buy the plaintiff's share in the written statement—potentially triggering Order XII Rule 6 proceedings—plaintiffs may seek valuation or title documents. Yet, courts uphold that defendants need not produce what they don't hold.

Detailed Analysis of Order 11 Rule 12 CPC

Obligation Limited to Possession or Power

The law explicitly confines discovery to documents within a party's possession or power. Courts have consistently refused orders for production beyond this scope 1972 0 Supreme(SC) 326. For instance, a party cannot be compelled to produce documents not in their possession or control and that relevance alone does not impose such an obligation 1972 0 Supreme(SC) 326.

In a partition context, if the defendant credibly claims certain share valuation reports or third-party records are unavailable, no compulsion arises.

Credibility of Non-Possession Claims

Courts evaluate the credibility of non-possession assertions. In one ruling, the court upheld that when a party asserts non-possession, and this assertion is credible, the court should accept it unless there is evidence to suggest willful non-production 1988 0 Supreme(Ori) 187. Supported by consistent stands and documentation, such claims prevail.

Relevance vs. Availability

Even relevant documents escape production if not possessed. The relevance of documents is secondary if the documents are not in possession or control 1988 0 Supreme(Ori) 187. This protects parties from fishing expeditions, common in partition disputes over shares.

Integrating Related Provisions and Case Insights

Adverse Inference and Non-Production

Non-production doesn't automatically trigger adverse inference. Under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC, non-production of documents as demanded... does not necessarily warrant adverse inference 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 3941. The court clarified that Order 12 Rule 8 differs from Order 11 provisions, refusing inference where proof of parting possession failed 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 3941.

In partition suits, this means a defendant's offer to purchase doesn't hinge on producing every demanded document.

Commercial Disputes and Timelines

In commercial suits involving partition-like property divisions, strict timelines apply. The court emphasized strict adherence to procedural timelines in commercial disputes, concluding that introducing additional documents post-evidence closure undermines the intent of the Commercial Courts Act 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1043. Applications under Order 11 Rule 1(10) CPC for additional documents post-evidence were dismissed for lacking reasonable cause outside the party's control 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1043.

Exceptions: Control Over Third-Party Documents

Parties may need to produce documents in their power, even if held by agents or banks. One case involved directing a bank under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC during suit pendency 2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31765. However, certified copies or lack of relation to issues can negate this 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 4278.

Since the documents in our view do not relate to any matter in question in the present suit, the respondent cannot be directed to produce the same under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 4278.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

Willful non-compliance risks penalties under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC, like striking defenses, but only after notice and hearing 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 289. The exercise of the power... is limited... to cases where the defendant fails to comply with an order 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 289. Appeals against production orders may not be maintainable if they don't affect vital rights 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 289.

In additional evidence scenarios, like appeals under Order XLI Rule 27, flawed handling leads to remands, but title proof remains key in land partitions 2018 0 Supreme(Gau) 1281.

Application to Partition Suits and Defendant's Offer

When a defendant declares readiness to purchase the plaintiff's share in the written statement, it may constitute an admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, potentially allowing judgment. However, discovery demands under Order 11 test this. If documents like prior agreements are demanded but not possessed, the defendant prevails, provided credibility holds 1988 0 Supreme(Ori) 187.

Plaintiffs must prove possession/control; defendants should substantiate non-possession.

Exceptions and Limitations

Bad Faith Claims: False non-possession invites adverse inferences and penalties.
Power Over Third Parties: Courts may order production if control exists, e.g., via summons under Order 11 Rule 14 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 708.
Post-Evidence Introduction: Rare in commercial/partition matters due to timelines 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1043.

Practical Recommendations

For Plaintiffs: Establish possession/control with evidence before demanding.
For Defendants: Assert non-possession credibly, backed by affidavits.
For Courts: Assess credibility before ordering; avoid overreach.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC, parties typically face no duty to produce documents beyond their possession or power, even in contentious partition suits where defendants offer to buy shares. This balances discovery rights with practicality, as affirmed in rulings like 1988 0 Supreme(Ori) 187

Gaurav Garg vs Girdhar Gopal Gupta - Delhi (2022)

Key Takeaways:- Limit discovery to possessed documents.- Credibility trumps demands.- Adverse inferences require willfulness.- Consult professionals for case-specific strategy.

This article provides general insights based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Always seek counsel from a qualified lawyer for your situation.