The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the mechanism of discovery and production of documents under Order XI, Rules 12 and 14 of CPC, could not be invoked merely because a litigant found it convenient to obtain evidence though the opposite party, especially when such evidence was otherwise reasonably accessible to them.

“The processes of court cannot be made a handmaiden of indolent litigators. Neither can said provisions be reduced into a medium of collecting evidence in support of foundational facts pleaded by such party, the burden of establishing which lies upon it…”

The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit was hearing a petition challenging order of the trial court that rejected an application by the petitioner seeking production of certain documents that were allegedly in the respondent-department's custody.

The Court opined that the documents in question were public documents, being part of official records of the respondent-department, and hence, were capable of being obtained as per the applicable laws governing production of public documents.

For context, the petitioner's case was that the respondent had sanctioned construction of a pond on his land, which was later transferred to a different location. This action was challenged by the petitioners, seeking permanent injunction.

It was argued that relevant documents like the sanction order, chak plan and the survey sheet, were in the custody of the respondent-department, and hence, an application under Order XI, Rules 12 and 14, CPC, were filed.

However, this application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the application was filed after a lapse of almost 2 months from the institution of the suit. Hence, the petition was filed. The petitioner argued that the documents sought were highly relevant and germane for adjudication.

It was further argued that the petitioner had filed application under the RTI act to obtain the documents which got rejected. However, the Court highlighted the fact that no proof of such refusal/rejection of the RTI application was placed on record.

In this background, while underscoring the discretionary nature of the power under the provisions, the Court observed that when the documents sought to be discovered were public documents and were otherwise capable of being obtained by the party seeking its production, the discretionary nature of the power assumed greater significance.

It was observed,

“…mechanism of discovery and production of documents envisaged under Rules 12 and 14 of Order XI CPC is intended to facilitate fair adjudication by securing material documents where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It cannot, however, ordinarily be invoked merely because a litigant finds it convenient to obtain evidence through the opposite party, particularly where such evidence is otherwise reasonably accessible to them.”

Accordingly, the trial court order was upheld and the petition was dismissed.