The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that courts cannot mechanically grant applications for discovery of documents under Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC without establishing their direct relevance to the pleadings. This ruling reinforces procedural discipline in civil litigation and curbs fishing expeditions disguised as discovery requests.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiff, Shriji Maharaj Shyamcharan Devacharya, Prabandhak of Akhil Bharatiya Nimbarka Peeth, filed a civil suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction, and mandatory injunction over eight survey numbers of disputed land totaling 10.720 Rakba. The defendants, including respondents no. 4 to 8, filed a written statement and subsequently applied under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 of the CPC for production of original documents allegedly relied upon by the plaintiff.
Procedural History
- The plaintiff filed the suit with photocopies of documents, including a general power of attorney (Mukhtiyarnama), but did not annex originals of the will executed by Nandram, trust certificate from Jaipur, lease deed (Patta), or Dastavej dakhla.
- Defendants applied for production of these originals without specifying how each document was material to the dispute.
- The trial court allowed the application without examining whether the documents were even pleaded or filed.
- The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the trial court’s order, arguing that no legal basis existed to compel production of documents never filed, and that the order was passed without application of judicial mind.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC permits a court to direct production of original documents that were never filed with the plaint, and whether such an order can be granted without the applicant demonstrating specific relevance to the issues in dispute.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that since the plaintiff had not filed any original documents except the photocopy of the Mukhtiyarnama, there was no foundation for the discovery application. He cited Harish Chandra Kasotiya v. Deepak Kumar Agrawal to show that discovery cannot be granted as a matter of right, especially when the documents are not part of the pleadings and their relevance is not articulated. He emphasized that the defendants failed to explain how the will, trust certificate, or lease deed bore any connection to the title claim.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not contest the core legal proposition but defended the trial court’s order on procedural grounds, asserting that the court has inherent power under Section 151 CPC to ensure justice. However, no specific legal authority was cited to justify compelling production of non-filed documents.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of Order 11 Rule 12, which permits discovery of documents that are or have been in the possession or power of the opposite party and are relevant to the matter in question. It held that the rule is not a tool for fishing expeditions. The Court observed that the defendants’ application contained no averments linking the sought documents to the plaintiff’s claim or the defendants’ defense.
"By simply filing the application under Order 11 Rule 12 for discovery of document, defendant does not get a right to get the application allowed."
The Court relied on Harish Chandra Kasotiya to underscore that discovery applications must be grounded in pleadings and must demonstrate materiality. It noted that the trial court had not reviewed the plaint or the application to ascertain whether the documents were even alleged to have been filed. The order was therefore mechanical, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice.
The Court further held that Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to circumvent the procedural safeguards of Order 11 Rule 12. The power to ensure justice does not override the requirement of relevance and specificity.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The High Court set aside the trial court’s order, holding that discovery of documents cannot be ordered unless they are pleaded, filed, and their relevance is specifically demonstrated. The impugned order was declared unsustainable in law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Discovery Requires Specific Relevance
- Practitioners must now articulate precisely how each requested document relates to a pleaded fact or legal issue.
- Blanket requests for "all documents" will be rejected unless tied to specific allegations in the pleadings.
No Discovery Without Filing
- Courts cannot compel production of originals of documents never submitted with the plaint.
- A party cannot use discovery to retroactively supplement its case; the burden lies on the party to file relevant documents at the outset.
Judicial Discretion Must Be Exercised
-
Trial courts must record reasons for allowing or rejecting discovery applications.
-
Mechanical orders without analysis invite writ jurisdiction under Article 227.
-
Always cross-check whether requested documents are mentioned in the plaint or written statement.
-
If opposing party seeks discovery of non-filed documents, file a counter-affidavit stating they were never part of the pleadings.
-
Cite Harish Chandra Kasotiya and this judgment to oppose fishing expeditions under Order 11 Rule 12.
