RAMKUMAR AGRAWAL (IN PERSON) vs VEER SINGH SONWANI

Digitally signed by
ALOK SHARMA
Date: 2026.10.27
17:36:51 +0530
1

CGHC010131572026 2026:CGHC:45183
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 403 of 2026
1 - Ramkumar Agrawal (In Person) S/o Beni Prasad Agrawal Aged About 82
Years R/o Behind Kabir Bada, Ward No. 1, New Ward No. 14, Shankar
Nagar, Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, Radha Bai Agrawal W/o Ramkumar
Agrawal Aged About 58 Years R/o Behind Kabir Bada, Ward No. 1, New Ward
No. 14, Shankar Nagar, Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Died Through Her Legal
Representative Ramkumar Agrawal, Petitioner No. 1)
2 - Garima Agrawal W/o Laxminarayan Agrawal, D/o Ramkumar Agrawal
Aged About 30 Years R/o Behind Kabir Bada, Ward No. 1, New Ward No. 14,
Shankar Nagar, Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
3 - Reema Agrawal (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 24.06.2026
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Veer Singh Sonwani S/o Siyandas Sonwani Aged About 68 Years R/o
Behind Kabir Bada, Ward No. 1, New Ward No. 14, Shankar Nagar,
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
2 - Bharti Sonwani W/o Karan Sonwani Aged About 33 Years R/o Behind
Kabir Bada, Ward No. 1, New Ward No. 14, Shankar Nagar, Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
3 - Khemin Sonwani W/o Ravi Sonwani Aged About 28 Years R/o Behind
Kabir Bada, Ward No. 1, New Ward No. 14, Shankar Nagar, Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
4 - Karan Sonwani S/o Veer Singh Sonwani Aged About 37 Years R/o Behind
Kabir Bada, Ward No. 1, New Ward No. 14, Shankar Nagar, Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
5 - Ravi Sonwani S/o Veer Singh Sonwani Aged About 31 Years R/o Behind

2
Kabir Bada, Ward No. 1, New Ward No. 14, Shankar Nagar, Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
6 - Reema Agrawal/ Chaurasia D/o Rajendra Prasad Chaurasia Aged About
31 Years New Address R/o House No. 79, Badavan, Bansgaon, District
Gorakhpur, (U.P.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramkumar Agrawal, Petitioner In Person.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on Board
26/10/2026
1.
The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order
dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned First Civil
Judge, Junior Division, Mahasamund, in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2021,
whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 16 Rule 6
read with Rule 21 of the CPC has been rejected. The petitioner prayed
for the following reliefs in the writ petition:-
“(A) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call
concerning record from the Court below for kind perusal
of this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice.
(B) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
allow this petition setting aside the impugned order dated
13.01.2026 (Annexure P/1) and pass such other
order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the
interest of justice.”
2. Mr. Ramkumar Agrawal, the petitioner No. 1 in person, would submit
that the learned trial Court has committed an error of law in rejecting
the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 16 Rule 6 read
with Rule 21 of the CPC, seeking production of the registered sale
deed in respect of the land admeasuring 0.029 hectare (approximately
3,178 square feet), bearing Khasra No. 441/1, allegedly purchased by

3
the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioners have instituted the
civil suit seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of injuries
sustained by them in an incident arising out of a dispute concerning the
land situated adjacent to their property. The respondents have
encroached upon a portion of land measuring 26 feet × 25 feet, i.e.,
approximately 750 square feet, and have raised an illegal construction
thereon in February 2021, claiming ownership over the said land. The
respondents have asserted in their written statements that they
purchased the larger parcel of land bearing Khasra No. 441/1;
however, despite such assertion, they have not produced the
registered sale deed in support of their claim.
3. He would further submit that the production of the aforesaid sale deed
is necessary for the proper adjudication of the controversy between the
parties, particularly in view of the respondents' claim of ownership over
the land in question and the petitioners' allegation that a portion of the
land adjoining their property has been encroached upon by the
respondents. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has rejected the
application merely on the ground that the petitioners have not
produced a revenue map establishing the contiguity of the respective
plots, without appreciating that the suit was at the stage of the plaintiffs'
evidence and that the document sought to be produced was
specifically identified on the basis of the respondents' own pleadings. It
is further submitted that, under Order 16 Rule 6 read with Rule 21 of
the CPC, the Court has the authority to require production of a
document in the possession or control of a party where such
production is relevant to the matters in controversy even they can
direct the defendant to produce the document. The petitioners are not

4
seeking a final determination of title at this stage; rather, they seek
production of the document relied upon by the respondents to
substantiate their claim of ownership. It is, therefore, submitted that the
impugned order dated 13.01.2026 is contrary to law and has the effect
of depriving the petitioners of relevant documentary evidence.
Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the impugned order be set
aside and the learned trial Court be directed to reconsider the
application in accordance with law.
4. Mr. R. S. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, would
submit that the learned trial Court has committed no illegality in
rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 16
Rule 6 read with Rule 21 of the CPC. It is argued that an earlier
application preferred by the petitioners under Order 16 Rule 2 of the
CPC was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated
11.08.2025, which has not been challenged and has attained finality;
therefore, the petitioners cannot maintain the present application in the
same proceedings. Learned counsel would further submit that the
petitioners are required to establish their case by adducing their own
evidence and cannot seek to compel the respondents to produce
documents merely to substantiate the petitioners' case. The petitioners
have neither furnished copies of the documents sought to be
summoned nor demonstrated their relevance and necessity for
adjudication of the dispute. It is further submitted that, insofar as the
registered sale deed is concerned, the petitioners may obtain its
certified copy from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mahasamund, by
following the prescribed procedure, whereas the other documents
sought to be produced are private documents and no sufficient basis

5
has been shown for compelling their production. Learned counsel
would further submit that the application is misconceived, unnecessary
and intended to cause harassment and inconvenience to the
respondents. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed
and the impugned order be affirmed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
6. The question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is
whether the learned trial Court has committed any jurisdictional error or
material irregularity in rejecting the application preferred by the
petitioners under Order 16 Rule 6 read with Rule 21 of the CPC,
seeking production of the registered sale deed in respect of the land
bearing Khasra No. 441/1, admeasuring 0.029 hectare, allegedly
purchased by the respondents. The petitioners have instituted the civil
suit seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries allegedly
sustained by them in an incident arising out of a dispute between the
parties concerning the construction of a wall and the alleged
encroachment over a portion of land measuring 26 feet × 25 feet. Their
case is that the respondents have claimed ownership over the larger
parcel of land bearing Khasra No. 441/1 and, on the basis of such
claim, have encroached upon the adjoining land belonging to the
petitioners. The respondents, on the other hand, have denied the
allegation of encroachment and asserted that they are in possession of
the land purchased by them from its erstwhile owner. Thus, the
application for production of the sale deed has to be examined in the
context of the nature of the suit, the pleadings of the parties and the
relevance of the document sought to be produced.

6
7. Order 16 Rule 6 of the CPC enables the Court to summon a person to
produce a document without requiring such person to attend
personally. Further, Rule 21 of Order 16 makes the provisions relating
to witnesses applicable, subject to the statutory conditions, to a party to
the suit who is required to give evidence or produce a document.
Therefore, the mere fact that the document sought to be produced is in
the possession of the opposite party would not, by itself, constitute a
ground to reject an application for its production. At the same time, the
power to summon a document is required to be exercised judicially,
upon consideration of its relevance to the questions arising for
adjudication and the necessity of its production. The provision cannot
be invoked merely to enable a party to undertake a roving inquiry into
the title or affairs of the opposite party. In the present case, the
petitioners seek the registered sale deed on the basis of the
respondents' own assertion that they purchased 0.029 hectare of land
bearing Khasra No. 441/1. The question, therefore, is whether the said
document has a sufficient bearing on the controversy involved in the
suit for compensation to warrant its production at the instance of the
petitioners.
8. In the present case, the learned trial Court has observed that the
petitioners' own registered sale deed dated 01.06.1994 relates to land
bearing Khasra No. 445/14, whereas the respondents claim to be in
possession of land bearing Khasra No. 441/1, measuring 0.029
hectare. The petitioners have not placed any revenue map or other
material on record to prima facie establish that the land claimed by the
respondents is contiguous to the petitioners' land or that the disputed
portion of 750 square feet forms part of the petitioners' property. The

7
mere fact that the respondents have asserted ownership over the land
bearing Khasra No. 441/1 does not, in itself, establish the relevance or
necessity of summoning their sale deed for adjudication of the suit for
compensation. The burden of establishing the pleaded case rests upon
the petitioners, and the document sought to be produced must have a
demonstrable connection with the controversy requiring adjudication. In
the circumstances of the present case, the petitioners have not
demonstrated how the respondents' sale deed, in the absence of prima
facie material establishing the contiguity of the two parcels of land or
the alleged encroachment, is indispensable for deciding their claim for
compensation. Moreover, insofar as the registered sale deed is
concerned, the petitioners may seek its certified copy from the
competent registration office in accordance with law. The learned trial
Court has, therefore, considered the nature of the suit, the documents
already on record and the purpose for which the production of the sale
deed was sought.
9. Consequently, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has exercised
its discretion on relevant considerations and that the impugned order
does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, material irregularity or
perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked
merely because the petitioners seek production of a document which,
according to them, may support their case, particularly when its
relevance to the controversy has not been sufficiently demonstrated.
10. The petitioners shall, however, remain at liberty to establish their
allegations of encroachment and the injuries allegedly sustained by
them by adducing admissible evidence in accordance with law. The

8
observations made herein are confined to the application for production
of the document and shall not prejudice the adjudication of the civil suit
on its merits.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed .
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Alok