Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XVI Rule 1(2) read with Section 151 — Summoning of witness and production of documents — Suit for permanent injunction — Plaintiffs seeking to summon records of third-party institution to establish possession — Not proper mode of proof — Application rightly dismissed. Paras 2 and 7. Civil Procedure — Suit for permanent injunction — Burden of proving possession — Nature of evidence — Plaintiffs must establish possession through cogent and direct evidence — Summoning documents of unrelated third party institution insufficient to establish possession. Paras 6 and 7. Evidence — Relevance and necessity — Documents pertaining to third party — Whether essential for adjudication — Held, summoning third-party records to disprove defendant’s stand or to establish plaintiffs’ possession, when plaintiffs can lead direct evidence, is not warranted. Paras 4 and 7.

advocatemmmohan

Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Interference with discretionary orders — Application to summon third party documents and witness — No illegality or perversity — Interference declined.

Held, where the Trial Court exercises discretion in refusing to summon documents and witnesses of a third party in a suit for injunction, and such refusal does not suffer from illegality or perversity, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked to reappreciate the matter. Paras 5 and 7.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XVI Rule 1(2) read with Section 151 — Summoning of witness and production of documents — Suit for permanent injunction — Plaintiffs seeking to summon records of third-party institution to establish possession — Not proper mode of proof — Application rightly dismissed. Paras 2 and 7.

Civil Procedure — Suit for permanent injunction — Burden of proving possession — Nature of evidence — Plaintiffs must establish possession through cogent and direct evidence — Summoning documents of unrelated third party institution insufficient to establish possession. Paras 6 and 7.

Evidence — Relevance and necessity — Documents pertaining to third party — Whether essential for adjudication — Held, summoning third-party records to disprove defendant’s stand or to establish plaintiffs’ possession, when plaintiffs can lead direct evidence, is not warranted. Paras 4 and 7.

Result — Civil Revision Petition dismissed — No order as to costs. Para 8.

────────────────────────────────────────
RATIO DECIDENDI
────────────────────────────────────────

The ratio of the decision is that in a suit for permanent injunction, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to establish actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property through cogent and legally admissible evidence. An application under Order XVI Rule 1(2) CPC to summon documents and witnesses of a third party, when such documents are not directly essential for adjudication of possession and are sought merely to counter the defendant’s stand, cannot be treated as a necessary step in proving possession.

Where the Trial Court, upon examining the pleadings and nature of relief sought, refuses to summon such third-party records and finds that plaintiffs must independently prove their case, such order does not suffer from illegality or perversity. Consequently, the High Court, in exercise of its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, will not interfere with such discretionary orders.