The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that trial courts cannot reject applications to summon original records merely on grounds of delay when the authenticity of documents filed under the RTI Act is seriously in question. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural expediency must not override substantive justice in civil litigation involving property disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rampal Kachi, is a defendant in a civil suit for declaration and injunction concerning disputed land. The plaintiff sought to establish title based on a mutation entry recorded in the revenue records. The petitioner challenged the validity of the mutation, alleging that the sale deeds submitted to the Revenue Court were fabricated.
Key Facts
- The petitioner obtained photocopies of sale deeds from the Revenue Department under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) on an unspecified date prior to filing the application.
- These RTI-obtained photocopies were filed in the civil suit as evidence but were rejected by the trial court as inadmissible, since they were not certified copies under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- The petitioner alleged that the photocopies submitted by the plaintiff were manipulated and did not reflect the true contents of the original mutation file.
- The petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking the production of the original mutation file from the Tehsildar’s office to verify authenticity.
- The trial court rejected the application solely on the ground that calling the original file would cause delay in the proceedings.
Procedural History
- Date of filing of civil suit: Not specified in judgment, but proceedings ongoing at stage of plaintiff’s evidence.
- Date of RTI request and receipt of photocopies: Not specified, but occurred prior to filing of application under Section 151 CPC.
- Date of application under Section 151 CPC: Not specified, but filed during pendency of plaintiff’s evidence.
- Date of trial court’s order rejecting application: 04.12.2025.
- Date of filing of Misc. Petition No. 782 of 2026: Not specified, but filed before the High Court shortly after rejection.
- Date of High Court order: 08.04.2026.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the trial court’s order dated 04.12.2025 and a direction to summon the original mutation file from the Revenue Court of Tehsildar cum Executive Magistrate to verify the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a trial court may reject an application under Section 151 CPC to summon original records from a revenue authority merely on the ground of delay, when the authenticity of documents filed under the RTI Act is challenged and those documents are inadmissible as evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the RTI-obtained photocopies were not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act and could not serve as proof of title. The petitioner had a legitimate need to examine the original mutation file to expose possible manipulation of sale deeds, which directly impacted the merits of the suit. The application, though captioned under Section 151 CPC, was实质上 grounded in Order 13 Rule 10 or Order 16 Rule 6 CPC, which empower courts to summon documents in their custody. The trial court’s refusal to act amounted to a denial of fair opportunity to cross-examine and rebut evidence.
For the Respondent
The respondent contended that the application was a dilatory tactic designed to prolong litigation. The trial court was justified in rejecting the application to ensure speedy disposal of the suit. The respondent argued that the petitioner had already obtained copies and could not now demand original records without showing concrete evidence of tampering.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court observed that while Section 151 CPC is a residuary provision, the prayer to summon original records from a revenue authority is more appropriately governed by Order 13 Rule 10 (power to produce documents) or Order 16 Rule 6 (power to summon documents in possession of public officers). The court emphasized that the trial court’s sole reason for rejection - potential delay - was legally unsustainable.
"The trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, and only so as to conduct speedy trial has rejected the application which would lead in failure of justice."
The court held that the right to a fair trial includes the right to challenge the authenticity of documentary evidence. Where documents are inadmissible and their veracity is contested, the court has a duty to ensure that the true record is examined. The petitioner’s right to cross-examine witnesses on the contents of the mutation file was directly affected by the refusal to summon the original. Speedy trial cannot be invoked to sacrifice substantive justice.
The court further noted that the Revenue Court’s original file is a public record under the custody of a public officer, and its production is not only permissible but mandatory where its contents are material to the dispute.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The trial court’s order dated 04.12.2025 rejecting the application under Section 151 CPC was set aside. The trial court is directed to issue consequential orders to summon the original mutation file from the Tehsildar’s office. The petitioner shall be granted reasonable opportunity to examine the original records and cross-examine witnesses on their contents. The trial court shall complete this process without undue delay and proceed with the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Original Records Cannot Be Denied on Grounds of Delay Alone
- Practitioners must now argue that delay alone is not a valid ground to reject applications under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC when authenticity of documents is in dispute.
- Courts must balance procedural efficiency with the right to a fair hearing under Article 21 of the Constitution.
RTI Copies Are Not Substitutes for Certified Evidence
- RTI-obtained documents are not admissible as evidence unless certified under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Where such documents are relied upon, the opposing party has the right to demand the original record for verification.
Trial Courts Must Act Proactively on Document Production
- Courts cannot abdicate their duty under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC to summon documents from public authorities.
- Failure to do so may render the trial procedurally defective and subject to reversal on appeal.
