The petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 24.06.2019 on IA.No.V in O.S.No.108/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Byadgi.
2. The petitioner is defendant and respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.108/2016 filed for relief of possession and damages. After completion of plaintiff s evidence, the petitioner-defendant filed application under Order XI Rule 16 of CPC to direct the plaintiff to produce original partnership deed and dissolution deed of the firm C.K.Eli and sons which is in the custody of plaintiff. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that the original partnership deed and dissolution deed of C.K.Eli and sons, partnership firm is in the custody of plaintiff and plaintiff was the Managing partner of the firm. According to the defendant the said document is very much necessary to decide the issue involved in the suit. The plaintiff filed his objection stating that the plaintiff is not the partner of C.K.Eli and Sons. When the plaintiff is not a partner of the firm, the question of custody of original dissolution deed would not arise. The trial Court under impugned order rejected IA.No.V filed by the petitioner-defendant herein. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiff was a partner of firm called C.K.Eli and Sons and he invites attention of this Court to the averments made in the written statement, wherein the defendant had contended that the plaintiff was managing the business affairs of the firm and she was a partner in C.K.Eli and Sons in the year 1998. The partnership of plaintiff and one Vijaykumar Channabasappa Yeli was dissolved. The learned counsel further contends that the original partnership deed and dissolution deed is in the custody of plaintiff and plaintiff is withholding the said document without producing the same before the Court.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the order passed by the trial Judge, I am of the view that the order passed by the trial Judge is neither perverse nor erroneous calling for interference.
6. The petitioners application under Order 11 Rule 16 is for a direction to the plaintiff to produce original partnership deed and dissolution deed relating to C.K.Eli and Sons, a partnership firm. It is specific averment of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is not a partner of the said partnership firm. Hence, the question of producing those documents would not arise. The defendant has not produced any piece of document to demonstrate that the plaintiff is partner of the said firm C.K.Eli and Sons.
7. Order 11 Rule 16 of CPC reads as follows;
16. Notice to produce.- Notice to any party to produce any documents referred to in his pleading or affidavits shall be in From No.7 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require. A reading of the above, provision would makes it clear that notice could be issued to any party to produce any document which is referred to in his pleading. If the said document is not mentioned in the pleading, no notice could be issued under Order 11 Rule 16.
8. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner-defendant that there is specific averment of documents relating to partnership and dissolution of partnership and the plaintiff has failed to produce documents which are mentioned in the plaint averment. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. Sd/- JUDGE
Comments