Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 557
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No(s) 307 OF 2025
SRI SHRIKANTH NS & ORS. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
K. MUNIVENKATAPPA & ANR. …. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO (S). 308 OF 2025
SRI SHRIKANTH NS & ORS. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
K. MUNIVENKATAPPA & ANR. …. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. These appeals by the defendants in the suit would call in question
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2025.04.23
17:40:10 IST
Reason:
the order passed by the High Court rejecting their writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India which in turn was preferred
2
against the First Appellate Court's common order dated 03.01.2022
allowing I.A. No. 2 under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1
1908 and I.A. No. 5 seeking permission to raise additional grounds in the
first appeal.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 19.11.1926, the
Government of Mysore granted the subject land to one Kurubettappa,
father of respondent no. 1/plaintiff. This land bearing Survey No. 11/2
admeasuring 3 acres 39 guntas situate at Honnakalasapura village, Anekal
Taluk was purchased by one Smt. Marakka, grandmother of the appellants
by a registered sale deed dated 11.10.1939 and mutation was carried out
in her name in the year 1939-40. Thereafter, the following
proceedings/suits were instituted by the respondents or her mother
assailing the said transaction dated 11.10.1939:
(i) Original Suit No. 181 of 1975 was filed seeking relief of
declaration and injunction against the appellants which came to
be dismissed for default on 28.01.1978;
(ii) On 31.08.1987, the Assistant Commissioner allowed respondent
no. 1's mother’s application under Section 5 of the Karanataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of
1
‘CPC’
3
Certain Lands) Act, 1978 seeking restoration of land in her
favour;
(iii) The appellants' appeal against the above order dated 31.08.1987
was dismissed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
on 24.11.1988;
(iv) The appellants preferred writ petition bearing WP No. 1254 of
1989 before the High Court which came to be allowed on
28.08.1989, setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant
Commissioner and Special Deputy Commissioner;
(v) On 23.10.1989, Writ Appeal No. 1776 of 1989 preferred by
respondent no. 1 was dismissed by the Division Bench affirming
the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
1254 of 1989;
(vi) On 10.11.1989, respondent no. 1 preferred O.S. No. 320 of 1989
seeking declaration and injunction;
(vii) The above suit was dismissed on 28.03.2002 by the Trial Court
holding that the suit is barred by limitation;
(viii) Regular Appeal No. 98 of 2002 preferred by respondent no. 1
was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 10.07.2007;
(ix) On 22.02.2010, Second Appeal bearing RSA No. 2099 of 2007
preferred by respondent no. 1 was dismissed by the High Court;
4
(x) Immediately after rejection of the RSA, respondent no. 1
preferred O.S. No. 91 of 2010 seeking permanent injunction
against the property in question;
(xi) On 06.08.2010, respondent no. 2/Tehsildar passed an order in
RRT No. 87 of 2010 rejecting the prayers sought, observing that
Mutation Register No. 5/1939-40 was a genuine entry;
(xii) Respondent No. 1 preferred another suit in OS No. 275 of 2010
seeking declaration of the title and declaration of the judgment
as void ab initio as also for consequential relief of permanent
injunction;
(xiii) In the year 2010, respondent no. 1 preferred a private complaint
against the Special Tehsildar for offences punishable under
Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and under
Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
(xiv) Respondent No. 1 again preferred civil suit bearing O.S. No.434
of 2011 seeking a declaration that the order dated 06.09.2010
passed by respondent no. 2/Tehsildar in RRT No. 87 of 2010 is
illegal.
3 . When the matter stood thus, the appellants preferred their written
statement along with an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of
5
the CPC in O.S. No. 434 of 2011, the present suit. This application was on
the plea that respondent no. 1 cannot seek relief in the plaint without
having sought cancellation of sale deed dated 11.10.1939. The Trial Court,
vide its order dated 28.10.2013 allowed the appellants' application and
rejected the plaint. In the meanwhile, the Special Tehsildar had preferred
Criminal Petition Nos. 4360 of 2010 and 5272 of 2010 seeking quashment
of criminal proceedings initiated by respondent no. 1 through the private
complaint. The High Court allowed the petitions vide order dated
29.11.2013 and quashed the criminal proceedings against the Special
Tehsildar.
4 . As against this order passed in criminal petitions preferred by the
Special Tehsildar, respondent no. 1 preferred SLP(Crl.) No. 8569 of 2014
which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2014
with observation that, the observations, if any, made by the High Court on
the merits of the controversy shall not prejudice the Civil Court in
determining the validity of the sale deed which according to the petitioner
(therein) has been fabricated.
5 . On 03.01.2018, the Trial Court dismissed both the suits (OS Nos.
275/2010 & 434/2011). Challenging the order, respondent no. 1 preferred
Regular Appeal No. 5002 of 2018 renumbered as Regular Appeal No. 270
6
of 2020 in relation to the order passed in O.S. 275 of 2010 and Regular
Appeal No. 271 of 2020 in relation to the order passed in O.S. No. 434 of
2011. The subject I.A. No. 5 has been preferred by respondent no. 1 in
these two regular appeals. The First Appellate Court allowed the
application vide its order dated 03.01.2022 which has been affirmed by
the High Court under the impugned order.
6 . Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
7 . In his application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC, respondent no.
1 prayed for direction to the 4th defendant/Tehsildar to produce Mutation
Register extract No. 5/1939-40 in respect of suit schedule property as
prayed in I.A. No. 2 whereas in the other application (I.A. No. 5) he sought
permission to raise additional grounds in pending regular appeal. While
allowing the applications the Trial Court seems to be influenced by the
observations made by this Court while dismissing the Special Leave
Petition preferred by respondent no. 1 without appreciating that the said
observation was made in Special Leave Petition (Criminal), in which the
quashing order passed by the High Court in the petition preferred by the
Special Tehsildar was under challenge. Since these proceedings were on
the criminal side, this Court observed that the observations in the order
shall not prejudice the Civil Court in determining the validity of the sale
7
deed. The Trial Court further observed that the validity of the sale deed
has to be adjudicated and for that the plaintiff has to be given opportunity
to prove his case, therefore, if the Tehsildar is called upon to produce the
Mutation Register, no hardship will be caused to anyone. The High Court
has maintained this order.
8 . In our considered view, while allowing the application under Order
XI Rule 14 of the CPC, the Trial Court has not adhered to the principles
governing the disposal of the application under Order XI Rule 14 of the
CPC. The said provision is reproduced herein for ready reference:
"Order XI Rule 14. Production of documents. -It shall
be lawful for the Court, at any time during the
pendency of any suit, to order the production by any
party thereto, upon oath, of such of the documents in
his possession or power, relating to any matter in
question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and
the Court may deal with such documents, when
produced, in such manner as shall appear just."
9 . The plain reading of the provision would manifest that the same
enables the Court to seek production of the documents during the
pendency of the suit. In the case at hand, the suit preferred by
respondent no.1 has already been dismissed by the Trial Court consequent
upon the rejection of the plaint while allowing the appellants' application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The stage for leading the evidence is
yet to arrive in the suit. In Regular Appeal pending before the First
8
Appellate Court, the Appellate Court is not enjoined to decide the merits of
the controversy. The First Appellate Court will only examine the validity of
the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaint. For the said purpose, the
Appellate Court will see to the contents of the plaint and nothing beyond.
No other documents can be seen by the Trial Court or by the First
Appellate Court without examining the issue concerning rejection of the
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In our considered view, the
First Appellate Court was unnecessarily influenced by the observation
made by this Court while dismissing Criminal Special Leave Petition. This
observation would only mean that the Civil Court proceedings shall be
determined on its own merits. It nowhere enables the Civil Court (the First
Appellate Court herein) to pass an order beyond the scope of Order XI
Rule 14 of the CPC. The order passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the
High Court in the impugned order allowing the prayer made by
respondent no. 1 for production of Mutation Register is totally
misconceived and suffers from an error of exercise of jurisdiction; it
deserves to be and is hereby set aside.
10 . Insofar as the order passed in I.A. No. 5 allowing respondent no. 1
to raise additional grounds in the Regular Appeal is concerned, we do not
9
think that the same suffers from any illegality. The same is hereby
affirmed.
11 . The Civil Appeals are disposed of in the above stated terms.
………………………………………J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
………………………………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2025.
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 557
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No(s) 307 OF 2025
SRI SHRIKANTH NS & ORS. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
K. MUNIVENKATAPPA & ANR. …. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO (S). 308 OF 2025
SRI SHRIKANTH NS & ORS. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
K. MUNIVENKATAPPA & ANR. …. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. These appeals by the defendants in the suit would call in question
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2025.04.23
17:40:10 IST
Reason:
the order passed by the High Court rejecting their writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India which in turn was preferred
2
against the First Appellate Court's common order dated 03.01.2022
allowing I.A. No. 2 under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1
1908 and I.A. No. 5 seeking permission to raise additional grounds in the
first appeal.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 19.11.1926, the
Government of Mysore granted the subject land to one Kurubettappa,
father of respondent no. 1/plaintiff. This land bearing Survey No. 11/2
admeasuring 3 acres 39 guntas situate at Honnakalasapura village, Anekal
Taluk was purchased by one Smt. Marakka, grandmother of the appellants
by a registered sale deed dated 11.10.1939 and mutation was carried out
in her name in the year 1939-40. Thereafter, the following
proceedings/suits were instituted by the respondents or her mother
assailing the said transaction dated 11.10.1939:
(i) Original Suit No. 181 of 1975 was filed seeking relief of
declaration and injunction against the appellants which came to
be dismissed for default on 28.01.1978;
(ii) On 31.08.1987, the Assistant Commissioner allowed respondent
no. 1's mother’s application under Section 5 of the Karanataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of
1
‘CPC’
3
Certain Lands) Act, 1978 seeking restoration of land in her
favour;
(iii) The appellants' appeal against the above order dated 31.08.1987
was dismissed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
on 24.11.1988;
(iv) The appellants preferred writ petition bearing WP No. 1254 of
1989 before the High Court which came to be allowed on
28.08.1989, setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant
Commissioner and Special Deputy Commissioner;
(v) On 23.10.1989, Writ Appeal No. 1776 of 1989 preferred by
respondent no. 1 was dismissed by the Division Bench affirming
the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
1254 of 1989;
(vi) On 10.11.1989, respondent no. 1 preferred O.S. No. 320 of 1989
seeking declaration and injunction;
(vii) The above suit was dismissed on 28.03.2002 by the Trial Court
holding that the suit is barred by limitation;
(viii) Regular Appeal No. 98 of 2002 preferred by respondent no. 1
was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 10.07.2007;
(ix) On 22.02.2010, Second Appeal bearing RSA No. 2099 of 2007
preferred by respondent no. 1 was dismissed by the High Court;
4
(x) Immediately after rejection of the RSA, respondent no. 1
preferred O.S. No. 91 of 2010 seeking permanent injunction
against the property in question;
(xi) On 06.08.2010, respondent no. 2/Tehsildar passed an order in
RRT No. 87 of 2010 rejecting the prayers sought, observing that
Mutation Register No. 5/1939-40 was a genuine entry;
(xii) Respondent No. 1 preferred another suit in OS No. 275 of 2010
seeking declaration of the title and declaration of the judgment
as void ab initio as also for consequential relief of permanent
injunction;
(xiii) In the year 2010, respondent no. 1 preferred a private complaint
against the Special Tehsildar for offences punishable under
Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and under
Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
(xiv) Respondent No. 1 again preferred civil suit bearing O.S. No.434
of 2011 seeking a declaration that the order dated 06.09.2010
passed by respondent no. 2/Tehsildar in RRT No. 87 of 2010 is
illegal.
3 . When the matter stood thus, the appellants preferred their written
statement along with an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of
5
the CPC in O.S. No. 434 of 2011, the present suit. This application was on
the plea that respondent no. 1 cannot seek relief in the plaint without
having sought cancellation of sale deed dated 11.10.1939. The Trial Court,
vide its order dated 28.10.2013 allowed the appellants' application and
rejected the plaint. In the meanwhile, the Special Tehsildar had preferred
Criminal Petition Nos. 4360 of 2010 and 5272 of 2010 seeking quashment
of criminal proceedings initiated by respondent no. 1 through the private
complaint. The High Court allowed the petitions vide order dated
29.11.2013 and quashed the criminal proceedings against the Special
Tehsildar.
4 . As against this order passed in criminal petitions preferred by the
Special Tehsildar, respondent no. 1 preferred SLP(Crl.) No. 8569 of 2014
which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2014
with observation that, the observations, if any, made by the High Court on
the merits of the controversy shall not prejudice the Civil Court in
determining the validity of the sale deed which according to the petitioner
(therein) has been fabricated.
5 . On 03.01.2018, the Trial Court dismissed both the suits (OS Nos.
275/2010 & 434/2011). Challenging the order, respondent no. 1 preferred
Regular Appeal No. 5002 of 2018 renumbered as Regular Appeal No. 270
6
of 2020 in relation to the order passed in O.S. 275 of 2010 and Regular
Appeal No. 271 of 2020 in relation to the order passed in O.S. No. 434 of
2011. The subject I.A. No. 5 has been preferred by respondent no. 1 in
these two regular appeals. The First Appellate Court allowed the
application vide its order dated 03.01.2022 which has been affirmed by
the High Court under the impugned order.
6 . Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
7 . In his application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC, respondent no.
1 prayed for direction to the 4th defendant/Tehsildar to produce Mutation
Register extract No. 5/1939-40 in respect of suit schedule property as
prayed in I.A. No. 2 whereas in the other application (I.A. No. 5) he sought
permission to raise additional grounds in pending regular appeal. While
allowing the applications the Trial Court seems to be influenced by the
observations made by this Court while dismissing the Special Leave
Petition preferred by respondent no. 1 without appreciating that the said
observation was made in Special Leave Petition (Criminal), in which the
quashing order passed by the High Court in the petition preferred by the
Special Tehsildar was under challenge. Since these proceedings were on
the criminal side, this Court observed that the observations in the order
shall not prejudice the Civil Court in determining the validity of the sale
7
deed. The Trial Court further observed that the validity of the sale deed
has to be adjudicated and for that the plaintiff has to be given opportunity
to prove his case, therefore, if the Tehsildar is called upon to produce the
Mutation Register, no hardship will be caused to anyone. The High Court
has maintained this order.
8 . In our considered view, while allowing the application under Order
XI Rule 14 of the CPC, the Trial Court has not adhered to the principles
governing the disposal of the application under Order XI Rule 14 of the
CPC. The said provision is reproduced herein for ready reference:
"Order XI Rule 14. Production of documents. -It shall
be lawful for the Court, at any time during the
pendency of any suit, to order the production by any
party thereto, upon oath, of such of the documents in
his possession or power, relating to any matter in
question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and
the Court may deal with such documents, when
produced, in such manner as shall appear just."
9 . The plain reading of the provision would manifest that the same
enables the Court to seek production of the documents during the
pendency of the suit. In the case at hand, the suit preferred by
respondent no.1 has already been dismissed by the Trial Court consequent
upon the rejection of the plaint while allowing the appellants' application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The stage for leading the evidence is
yet to arrive in the suit. In Regular Appeal pending before the First
8
Appellate Court, the Appellate Court is not enjoined to decide the merits of
the controversy. The First Appellate Court will only examine the validity of
the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaint. For the said purpose, the
Appellate Court will see to the contents of the plaint and nothing beyond.
No other documents can be seen by the Trial Court or by the First
Appellate Court without examining the issue concerning rejection of the
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In our considered view, the
First Appellate Court was unnecessarily influenced by the observation
made by this Court while dismissing Criminal Special Leave Petition. This
observation would only mean that the Civil Court proceedings shall be
determined on its own merits. It nowhere enables the Civil Court (the First
Appellate Court herein) to pass an order beyond the scope of Order XI
Rule 14 of the CPC. The order passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the
High Court in the impugned order allowing the prayer made by
respondent no. 1 for production of Mutation Register is totally
misconceived and suffers from an error of exercise of jurisdiction; it
deserves to be and is hereby set aside.
10 . Insofar as the order passed in I.A. No. 5 allowing respondent no. 1
to raise additional grounds in the Regular Appeal is concerned, we do not
9
think that the same suffers from any illegality. The same is hereby
affirmed.
11 . The Civil Appeals are disposed of in the above stated terms.
………………………………………J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
………………………………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2025.