Janardan Singh v. Chinta Devi And ANR

Patna High Court CWJC No.5046 of 2014 (2) dt.22-01-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5046 of 2014 ====================================================== Janardan Singh .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Chinta Devi & Anr .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Chandra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 22-01-2016 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Anil Chandra for the petitioner.

By the impugned order dated 20.12.2013, the learned Sub Judge I, Sheikhpura rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in Title Suit No.19 of 2010. It appears that the plaintiff-petitioner filed aforesaid title suit for declaration of title. He also filed photocopy of the agreement dated 09.06.2008 alleged to have been executed between plaintiff and defendant No.2. Thereafter application was filed by the plaintiff before the Court below praying therein to direct the defendant No.2 to produce the original agreement on the ground that defendant No.2 has prepared the agreement and the original is with him. A rejoinder was filed by the defendant No.2 denying all the allegations to the effect that he is neither prepared the same nor he possessed the same. The Court below by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.5046 of 2014 (2) dt.22-01-2016 impugned order has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff with aforesaid prayer.

The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration of title and, therefore, he has to prove his title with respect to the suit property. For that purpose, he cannot take assistance from the defendant particularly when the defendant is denying to have executed any such agreement and also denying to be in possession of the said agreement. In such circumstances, the Court cannot insist the defendant to produce the document which is not in his possession as alleged by the defendant No.2.

I view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order needs no interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.

Thus, this writ application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/- U T