Belated requests for original deeds may be refused where certified copies are on record and thumb impressions are undisputed.

In O.S. No. 5367/2023, the petitioners applied under Order XI Rule 14 CPC for production of the original sale deed and deed of exchange, both dated 24 September 2021.

They disputed plaintiff No. 3’s execution of the documents, asserting that he had not provided his thumb impression or photograph for registration and that these had been taken from a deed of release.

The trial court rejected the application on 3 September 2026.

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The respondents contended that the documents had been kept pending until plaintiff No. 3 appeared, that his thumb impressions appeared on each page, and that the application was made only after evidence had concluded, despite an earlier direction for expeditious disposal of the suit.

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioners’ application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC for production of the original sale deed and deed of exchange.

2. Whether the trial court’s order warranted interference in the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

Order XI Rule 14 CPC was the basis of the application seeking production of documents in the suit.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the Court considered whether the trial court’s rejection disclosed an error or infirmity warranting writ interference.

The judgment cited no precedents or further legal tests.

The Court found that the registering authority had endorsed that the documents were kept pending for the party’s appearance, and that plaintiff No. 3’s photograph and thumb impression were taken when he later appeared.

His thumb impression also appeared on each page, and the impression on the pages was not disputed.

In those circumstances, the separate page bearing the photograph and thumb impression did not, by itself, create reasonable doubt about the documents’ genuineness.

The Court also noted that the originals had not been sought at the outset or during the recording of evidence; the application was filed after evidence concluded, when the suit was to proceed to conclusion under an earlier direction for expeditious disposal.

Given these circumstances and the availability of certified copies on record, the trial court’s decision disclosed no error warranting interference.

The writ petition was dismissed.