Summary
In a regular appeal against a trial court's rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the First Appellate Court cannot allow an application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC directing a defendant (the Tehsildar) to produce a 1939-40 mutation register extract. Order XI Rule 14 operates during the pendency of a suit; once the plaint stood rejected and the evidence stage never arrived, the appellate court was confined to the contents of the plaint. The Supreme Court's earlier observation in a criminal SLP that the civil court's determination of the sale deed's validity would not be prejudiced did not enlarge the appellate court's powers. The order on production was set aside; the order permitting additional grounds in the appeal was affirmed.
Issues
- Whether the First Appellate Court, hearing a regular appeal against rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, could allow an application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC for production of a mutation register extract.
- Whether the Supreme Court's observation, while dismissing a criminal special leave petition, that the High Court's observations would not prejudice the civil court in determining the validity of the sale deed enlarged the scope of the civil appellate proceedings.
- Whether the order permitting respondent no. 1 to raise additional grounds in the regular appeal suffered from any illegality.
Provisions considered
- Order XI Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The rule enables the court, at any time during the pendency of a suit, to order a party to produce documents in its possession relating to a matter in question. Since the suit had been dismissed on rejection of the plaint and the stage of evidence had not arrived, the provision could not be used in the regular appeal to call for the mutation register; the order was an error in the exercise of jurisdiction. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The trial court had rejected the plaint on the defendants' application on the ground that the plaintiff could not seek the reliefs without seeking cancellation of the sale deed of 11.10.1939. In an appeal against such rejection the appellate court examines only the validity of the rejection order by looking at the plaint and nothing beyond it. (¶¶ 3, 9)
- Article 227, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court had dismissed the defendants' petition under Article 227 against the First Appellate Court's common order. The Supreme Court set aside the order on production of documents as affirmed by the High Court, while leaving undisturbed the order on additional grounds. (¶¶ 1, 9, 10)
Held
- Order XI Rule 14 CPC permits the court to order production of documents only during the pendency of a suit. Where the suit was dismissed upon rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 and the stage for leading evidence never arrived, the regular appeal concerns only the validity of the rejection order; the appellate court sees the contents of the plaint and nothing beyond, and neither the trial court nor the First Appellate Court can look at other documents without first deciding the Order VII Rule 11 issue. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The Supreme Court's observation, on dismissing the criminal SLP against quashing of proceedings against the Special Tehsildar, that the High Court's observations would not prejudice the civil court in determining the validity of the sale deed meant only that the civil proceedings were to be decided on their own merits. It did not enable the civil appellate court to pass an order beyond the scope of Order XI Rule 14 CPC, and the First Appellate Court was unnecessarily influenced by it. (¶¶ 7, 9)
- The order allowing respondent no. 1's prayer for production of the Mutation Register extract, as affirmed by the High Court, was misconceived and suffered from an error of exercise of jurisdiction; it was set aside. (¶ 9)
- The order on I.A. No. 5 allowing respondent no. 1 to raise additional grounds in the regular appeal suffered from no illegality and was affirmed. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeals disposed of: the order allowing I.A. No. 2 under Order XI Rule 14 CPC directing production of the Mutation Register extract, as affirmed by the High Court, set aside; the order allowing I.A. No. 5 permitting additional grounds in the regular appeal affirmed.