Oral Judgment:
Heard Shri Shivan Dessai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri D. Vernekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Rule. Heard forthwith by the consent of learned Counsels.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service.
4. The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao, dated 03.05.2011 whereby an application filed by the petitioners for leave to produce the documents came to be partly allowed and the documents mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1(b) to (g) at para 1 of the application came to be rejected. As a result of the impugned order, the petitioners were denied leave to produce the survey plan of the survey holding No.43/1-A and 1-B of Village Nuvem, Form I and XIV of survey holding No. 43/1-A of Village Nuvem, judgment and order in LRC No. 531/2005/III, death and burial certificate of Esmeralda Pereira, agreement dated 16.11.1991, and notice issued by the Additional Collector along with appeal memo. The relief sought in the petition is as follows:
“For a writ, direction or order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 03.05.2011, passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Margao, in Regular Civil Suit No. 157/2005/E to the extent that production of documents at serial no. (b) to (g) is rejected and allow the application dated 28.03.2011 in terms thereto.
5. Shri Shivan Dessai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the learned Judge has erroneously come to the conclusion that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners are not relevant to decide the matter in controversy. The learned counsel has taken me through para 17 of the plaint and pointed out specific allegations made therein that the respondents are residing in another property at Nuvem and according to the petitioners, the documents which are sought to be produced are required to substantiate the allegations made in the said para. The learned counsel further pointed out that at the stage of seeking leave to produce the said documents under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, the exact relevancy of the documents cannot be looked into as the relevancy would be ascertained at the time of appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Counsel further submitted that the documents sought to be produced are public documents and above suspicion and there are no allegations made by the respondents to the effect that such documents have been manufactured and/or fabricated. As such, the learned counsel submits that grave injustice would occasion to the petitioners in case such documents are not allowed to be produced as stated in para 1 of the application. As such, the learned counsel submits that there is a jurisdictional error committed by the learned Judge which calls for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. On the other hand, Shri D. Vernekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that there is no averment in the plaint to the effect that such documents were not in possession of the petitioners at the time of filing of the plaint. The learned counsel further points out that the learned Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the documents which are sought to be produced are irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the suit and that no case is made out by the petitioners for any interference by this Court in the impugned order.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsels as well as perused the records and pleadings of the parties. At para 17 of the plaint, the petitioners have made averments and allegations against the respondents to the effect that according to the petitioners the respondents are residing in some other property at Nuvem. The documents sought to be produced are survey documents which are undisputed to be public documents as mentioned at para 1 of the application. Considering the said aspect, the findings of the learned Judge that the documents are irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy cannot be accepted and in any event, such irrelevancy cannot be considered at this stage. Such relevancy would be ascertained only at the time of appreciating the evidence on record. Considering that the documents which are sought to be produced are not stated to be fabricated or manufactured or that the petitioners have deliberately delayed in producing the said documents, I find that the learned Judge was not justified to refuse leave to the petitioners to produce the said documents. Apart from that the petitioners contend that the documents are for the purpose of establishing the contents of para 17 of the plaint. No doubt, the issue of relevancy would be left open and the same will have to be considered by the learned Judge at the time of appreciating the evidence on record.
8. Subject to the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is made clear that the documents will have to be proved by the petitioners in accordance with law.
9. In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a).
(ii) The petition stands disposed of accordingly.