P. Varalakshmamma v. P. Bala Subrary Manyam And Others, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns two civil revision petitions challenging orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tenali, in relation to applications for production of a will. The first petition contests an order directing the petitioner to produce a certified copy of the will under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), while the second petition relates to an order dismissing the plaintiff's application to compel the 4th defendant to produce the original will. The petitioner in the first case claimed to have obtained a certified copy of the will, which was in possession of her relations. The Subordinate Judge ordered production of the document within ten days. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a civil revision petition. The second revision petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to challenge the order dismissing the plaintiff’s application, as the plaintiff had not preferred a revision petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether an order for production of a document under Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C. can be made without a prior application for discovery under Order 11, Rule 12, C.P.C.

Whether the petitioner can be compelled to produce a certified copy of the will that is not in her personal possession but in the possession of her relations.

Whether the 1st defendant (petitioner) can file a civil revision petition against the order dismissing the plaintiff’s application to produce the original will.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

An order under Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C. cannot be made without an application for discovery under Order 11, Rule 12, C.P.C.

The petitioner is not in possession of the certified copy of the will and therefore should not be compelled to produce it.

Respondent’s Arguments

The certified copy of the will is in the petitioner’s power or custody, as it is with her relations.

The petitioner has the ability to obtain the document from her relations and produce it before the court.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ram Hari De v. Niranjan Krishna Das and Co., 50 Cal WN 845 (A)	Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C. allows the Court to order production of documents at any time, even before discovery or filing of written statements.	The Court followed this decision to hold that an order under O. 11, R. 14 can be made without prior discovery under O. 11, R. 12.
Sri Niwas v. Election Tribunal, Lucknow, AIR 1955 All 251 (B)	Supports the view that production orders under O. 11, R. 14 can be made independently of discovery orders.	The Court preferred this view over contrary authority and applied it to uphold the order directing production of the will.
Baidyanath v. Bholanath Roy, AIR 1923 Pat 337 (C)	Contrary view that an order under O. 11, R. 14 cannot be made without prior discovery under O. 11, R. 12.	The Court declined to follow this decision, considering it inconsistent with the provisions of O. 11, R. 14, C.P.C.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Ram Hari De v. Niranjan Krishna Das and Co., 50 Cal WN 845 (A)

Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C. allows the Court to order production of documents at any time, even before discovery or filing of written statements.

The Court followed this decision to hold that an order under O. 11, R. 14 can be made without prior discovery under O. 11, R. 12.

Sri Niwas v. Election Tribunal, Lucknow, AIR 1955 All 251 (B)

Supports the view that production orders under O. 11, R. 14 can be made independently of discovery orders.

The Court preferred this view over contrary authority and applied it to uphold the order directing production of the will.

Baidyanath v. Bholanath Roy, AIR 1923 Pat 337 (C)

Contrary view that an order under O. 11, R. 14 cannot be made without prior discovery under O. 11, R. 12.

The Court declined to follow this decision, considering it inconsistent with the provisions of O. 11, R. 14, C.P.C.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the provisions of Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C., emphasizing the significance of the phrase "at any time," which permits the Court to order production of documents at any stage during the pendency of a suit without requiring a prior order for discovery under Order 11, Rule 12. The Court relied on authoritative decisions from the Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts that support this interpretation, rejecting the contrary decision of the Patna High Court as inconsistent with the statutory language.

Regarding possession, the Court found that the document was within the petitioner’s power or custody since it was held by her relations and there was no assertion that she was unable to procure it from them. Hence, the petitioner could be compelled to produce the certified copy of the will.

In the second revision petition, the Court noted that the petitioner was not entitled to challenge the order dismissing the plaintiff's application, as the plaintiff had not preferred a revision petition. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed for lack of locus standi.

Holding and Implications

The Court dismissed both civil revision petitions.

The first petition was dismissed with costs, upholding the order directing the petitioner to produce the certified copy of the will, affirming the Court’s power under Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C. to order production of documents without prior discovery. The second petition was dismissed without costs, as the petitioner had no standing to challenge the order dismissing the plaintiff’s application. No new precedent was established; the Court followed existing High Court decisions on the interpretation of Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C.

P. Varalakshmamma v. P. Bala Subrary Manyam And Others

Judgement

This is an application to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tenali in I. A. No. 1004 of 1955 in O. S. No. 13 of 1955 directing the petitioner herein to produce the certified copy of the will. The application was made under O. 11, R. 14, C. P. C. The petitioner stated in the counter-affidavit that she obtained a certified copy of the will and that her relations were in possession of the same. The learned Subordinate Judge passed the following order :

"Heard both sides. Admittedly 1st defendant has with her a certified copy of the document which has been given to some other for reference. This implies that 1st defendant has the power to recall the document and file it into Court. This being so, the 1st defendant is directed to produce the document within 10 days from this date."

As against this order, the 1st defendant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition to this Court. The first question argued for the petitioner is that an order under O. 11, R. 14 cannot be made without an application for discovery being made under O. 11, R. 12, C. P. C. This contention is in my opinion untenable having regard to the clear terms of O. 11, R. 14, C. P. C. Order 11, R. 14, C. P. C. enacts that it shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendencey of any suit to order the production.

The words "at any time" are very significant and important. Order 11, R. 14 does not provide that the order for production should be made only after an order of discovery is obtained under O. 11, R. 12, C. P. C. This view is supported by two direct decisions of the Calcutta High Court and the Allahabad High Court. In Ram Hari De v. Niranjan Krishna Das and Co., 50 Cal WN 845 (A), Majumdar J. discussed the several provisions and arrived at the conclusion that the Court has power to make the order under O. 11, R. 14 even before the written statement is filed or the order for discovery is made.

A similar view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court in Sri Niwas v. Election Tribunal, Lucknow, AIR 1955 All 251 (B). The only decision which takes a contrary view is that reported in Baidyanath v. Bholanath Roy, AIR 1923 Pat 337 (C). This decision has not been followed by the High Courts of Calcutta and Allahabad in the cases referred to supra. I am also inclined to take the view that the decision of the Patna High Court is not in accordance with the provisions of O. 11. R. 14, C. P. C. I therefore follow the decisions of the Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts in preference to the decision of the Patna High Court.

2. It was next contended that as the petitioner is not in possession of the certified copy she sought not to be compelled to produce the same. There is no force in this contention. The respondent admits that the document is in her power or custody being in the possession of her relations. It is not stated in the counter-affidavit filed in the lower Court that she is unable to obtain production of that document from her relations. I therefore agree with the order passed by the Court below and dismiss the civil revision petition with costs.

C. R. P. No. 1225 of 1955 :

3. This is an application to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tenali, dismissing the plaintiffs application I. A. No. 1005 of 1955 to direct 4th defendant to produce the original will. The plaintiff has not chosen to prefer a civil revision petition against the said order. It is not open to the 1st defendant to file a civil revision petition as against that order. This Civil Revision Petition is consequently dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this civil revision petition.

Revision petitions dismissed.

Civil Revn. Petns. Nos. 1223 and 1225 of 1955

P. Varalakshmamma v. P. Bala Subrary Manyam And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

Respondent’s Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

P. Varalakshmamma v. P. Bala Subrary Manyam And Others

Comments