After 750-Sq-Ft Encroachment Claim, Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Refusal To Summon Sale Deed Without Material Showing Plots Adjoined

The petitioners brought a civil suit seeking ₹2,00,000 in compensation for injuries allegedly sustained in an incident arising from a dispute over construction and an alleged encroachment of approximately 750 square feet.

The respondents claimed possession of land measuring 0.029 hectare in Khasra No. 441/1, which they said they had purchased.

During the plaintiffs’ evidence, the petitioners applied under Order XVI Rules 6 and 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for production of the respondents’ registered sale deed.

The trial court rejected the application, noting the absence of material showing that the respondents’ land was contiguous to the petitioners’ land or that the disputed area formed part of the petitioners’ property.

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order XVI Rule 6 CPC permits a court to summon a person to produce a document without requiring that person’s personal attendance; Order XVI Rule 21 applies the provisions relating to witnesses, subject to statutory conditions, to a party required to give evidence or produce a document.

A document’s possession by the opposing party is not, by itself, a reason to refuse production, but the court must assess its relevance and necessity judicially; the provision cannot be used for a roving inquiry into the opposing party’s title or affairs.

Under Article 227 of the Constitution, supervisory interference is warranted where the subordinate court’s order discloses jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or perversity.

The respondents’ assertion that they purchased land in Khasra No. 441/1 provided the basis for the petitioners’ request, but did not by itself establish that the sale deed was necessary to decide the compensation claim.

The petitioners’ own sale deed related to Khasra No. 445/14, and they had produced no revenue map or other material prima facie connecting the respondents’ parcel to their land or showing that the disputed area formed part of their property.

In those circumstances, the trial court was entitled to find that the document’s connection to the controversy had not been demonstrated.

The court also noted that the petitioners could seek a certified copy of the registered deed from the competent registration office.

The trial court’s decision rested on relevant considerations and disclosed no ground for supervisory intervention.

The petitioners remained at liberty to prove their allegations of encroachment and injury through admissible evidence; the court’s observations were confined to the production application and were not to prejudice the civil suit on its merits.