[1] This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.08.2011 passed below application Ex.16 in Regular Civil Suit No.402 of 2009 by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot whereby the application Ex.16 preferred by the petitioners for discovery of documents as referred in paragraph No.3 of the plaint is rejected. The said application was purporting to have been made under Order-XI, Rules - 12, 14 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Code.
[2] The petitioners claim to be owner and in possession of the properties described in the suit which came to be demolished by the respondent - authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent - authorities without informing the petitioners demolished the properties of the petitioners. The serious grievance was made by the petitioner to the effect that though the property in question of the petitioner did not fall under the purview of either Town Planning Act or under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, the respondent - authorities demolished the residential property of the petitioners. The application Ex.16 was opposed by the respondent
- authorities and it was pointed out that the property of the petitioners came to be demolished while exercising the powers under the Town Planning Act as it became the part of the T.P. Scheme No.7. It was further pointed out that the documents of which the inspection was sought by the petitioners through application Ex.16 were public documents and it is always open to the petitioners to ask for the copies of such documents. It is further stated that most of the documents which are in respect of the Town Planning Scheme are produced on record.
[3] After considering the objections raised by the respondents, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that all the documents discovery of which sought for by the petitioners were public documents and they were in respect of the Town Planning Scheme No.7. The learned Judge further observed that the public documents could be asked for by the petitioners by making application to the concerned offices of the Government. It is further observed that even the petitioners produced about 15 documents on record through Ex.27 and 5 more documents through Ex.30. Learned Judge came to the conclusion that in the facts of the case and looking to the contents of the application Ex.16, the petitioners did not make out any ground for exercising the power under Order - XI, Rule 12, 14 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Code.
[4] I have heard Mr.Vimal M. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners.
[5] Mr.Vimal M. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners would argue that the documents which the petitioners are seeking from the respondent - authorities are very much valuable and relevant documents for the petitioner to prove his case in the suit. These documents are also very much relevant even for the Court to decide the controversy involved in the suit. Mr.Patel, learned advocate would argue that if the petitioners are to make application for taking copies of the documents, the petitioners would require to incur heavy cost. In fact, even the respondent - authorities would also incur heavy cost in supplying all the documents. Mr.Patel, learned advocate would further argue that no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondents in supplying the documents demanded by the petitioners. In fact, supply of the documents would be in furtherance of and to subserve the interest of justice. Mr.Patel, learned advocate would, therefore, argue that the learned Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction by rejecting the application Ex.16.
[6] Having heard Mr.Vimal Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, I find that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge does not call for any interference while exercising the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Judge has found that the documents demanded by the petitioners are public documents and available with the respondent - authorities. The learned Judge has further observed that the documents sought for are in connection with the T.P. Scheme No.7 and, therefore, the petitioners can always ask for the documents. The learned Jude has also observed that the petitioners themselves produced about 20 documents on record and, therefore, there is no question of considering now the request of the petitioners or directing the respondents to give inspection of the documents demanded by the petitioners. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that since the documents are part of the T.P. Scheme No.7 and being the public documents, there is no question of granting any relief to the petitioners under Order - XI of the Civil Procedure Code. The reasoning adopted by the learned Judge while deciding the application Ex.16 under Order - XI, Rule - 12, 14 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Code are not found to be in any way contrary to the principles of law. If the documents are public documents and if they are concerned with the T. P. Scheme No.7 and the petitioners themselves could produce about 20 documents on record, there is no question of considering the request of the petitioners for directing the respondents to give inspection of the documents demanded by the petitioners. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge. Accordingly, I do not accept the petition and hence, it is dismissed.
[ C. L. SONI, J. ] vijay Top