This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is to challenge the order of the trial Court, directing the present petitioner-original defendant No.1, to produce true copies of his passports, vide order dated 21st March, 2012 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Navsari on an application Exh.113 in Regular Civil Suit No.112 of 2008.
The petitioner is the original defendant No.1 against whom and against respondents No.2 to 5, original plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein filed Regular Civil Suit No.112 of 2008, praying for a declaration and permanent injunction, declaring the registered sale deed dated 8th March 1995 executed between the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 5 in respect of the suit land bearing Block No.907 (old tenure land), admeasuring approximately 1,113 sq.mtrs., situated at village Ganesh Sisodrra in Navsari district, null and void.
The petitioner, in the written statement, has completely denied such transaction and has further stated that the petitioner was the power of attorney holder of respondent No.1 herein and being authorized to deal with the property in any manner as deemed fit. Accordingly, such sale deed has been executed in favour of respondents No.2 to 5 herein for valuable consideration and the said fact was known to respondent No.1 and the same was ratified by him. Such a power of attorney was executed in favour of the petitioner on 12th June, 1991 and the said document of sale has been registered in the office of the Sub Registrar and respondents No.2 to 5 have been put in possession.
In the above referred controversy, after framing all the issues, evidence is going on in the suit and during the cross-examination, certain questions were asked to the present petitioner, one of which concern his visit to London and America. He is also asked as to whether he is ready to produce passport to which he answered that his passport has no relevance with the controversy in question.
An application Exh.113 was preferred by the plaintiff inter-alia urging that the present petitioner-original defendant No.1 had visited London at the residence of the respondent No.1 and all his visits in England and USA could be brought on record provided his passport is/are produced. It can be noted that after hearing both the parties, the Court passed an order below Exh.113 directing that the certified copies of the passports of petitioner to be brought on record.
Learned Advocate Mr. Zubin F. Bharda appearing for the petitioner-original defendant No.1 states that this document has nothing to do with the issues in question. The Court could not have directed revelation of personal document in a suit where these details have no connection whatsoever. He further urged that though the Court's power to get the document produced under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not disputed, however, the order impugned requires to be interfered for the reasons above.
On examining the material on record, there is no requirement of interfering with the order impugned.
Firstly, this petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution where supervisory powers are sought to be invoked which are required to be exercised in the rarest of rare cases. Neither there is any jurisdictional error emerging on the record nor the petitioner could point out any material illegality flowing from such order. The petitioner has not been directed to produce his original passport, the trial Court being conscious of petitioner's right to retain his original passport directed production of xerox copies of the same. In the cross-examination while answering to some of the questions, though he admitted his visit of different countries, timings of which since was found vital to throw light on the disputes between the parties and therefore, the Court deemed it necessary to so direct production.
Cross-examination of the petitioner is going on and at that stage, when such a request made was found justifiable, in the opinion of this Court, no illegality has been committed by the trial Court.
Moreover, the very contention that has been raised right from the beginning by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein is of the alleged misuse of the power of attorney document given in favour of the present petitioner by original defendant No.1 as also of handing over of such document in original during their meeting abroad.
In light of these facts and the details culled out during the cross-examination, it can be unfailingly held that the trial Court has not committed either jurisdictional error, or otherwise in passing the order impugned. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed in the above terms.
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J.) Bharat* Top