Order XVI Rule 7 independently empowers courts to require persons present to produce documents.

The petitioner-defendant invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge the trial court’s order dated 12 January 2026.

The order allowed the respondents-plaintiffs’ application under Order XVI Rules 1 and 7 read with Section 151 CPC and directed the concerned Patwari to remain present for further examination and to produce attested copies of khasra girdawari records from 1960 to 2011, in addition to previously summoned revenue records.

The underlying suit sought a declaration of ownership and possession over land measuring 43 kanals and 6 marlas, together with correction of allegedly incorrect revenue entries.

The petitioner contended in his written statement that he had purchased the land from the plaintiff for ₹80,000 and had been in possession since 1989, as reflected in the revenue record.

During the plaintiff’s evidence, the Patwari was summoned with revenue records for 1969–70, 1997–98 and kharif 2011.

The trial court subsequently allowed the plaintiffs’ application for summoning the Patwari and the khasra girdawari registers from 1960 to 2011.

Whether the trial court could exercise its power under Order XVI Rule 7 CPC to require the Patwari, who was present before the court, to give further evidence and produce additional revenue documents, notwithstanding the requirements under Order XVI Rules 1–6 CPC?

Whether permitting production of khasra girdawari records from 1960 to 2011 amounted to allowing the plaintiffs to introduce a new case or caused prejudice to the petitioner?

Whether the trial court’s discretionary order warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution, under which supervisory jurisdiction is exercised sparingly and ordinarily does not interfere with a discretionary procedural order unless it is patently illegal.

Order XVI Rule 7 CPC empowers the court to require any person present in court to give evidence or produce any document then in that person’s possession or power.

The Court held that Rule 7 operates independently and does not conflict with Order XVI Rules 1–6, which concern the filing of witness lists, payment of witness expenses, summons, and production of documents by witnesses.

The Court further applied the principle that a party should not be prevented from producing the best available evidence in support of its pleaded case, provided the opposing party is afforded an opportunity to meet that evidence.

The Court held that the Patwari was already present pursuant to the court’s summons and was the custodian of the relevant revenue records.

Accordingly, the trial court was competent under Order XVI Rule 7 CPC to require him to continue his evidence and produce additional records in his possession or power.

The production of revenue entries from earlier years was found to be within the scope of the plaintiffs’ pleaded case that they and their predecessors had been owners in possession for a considerable period; it did not constitute the introduction of a new case.

The petitioner would suffer no procedural prejudice because he could cross-examine the Patwari on the newly produced records and lead rebuttal evidence.

Since the trial court’s order was discretionary, procedurally lawful, and intended to facilitate substantial justice, no ground for supervisory interference under Article 227 was made out.

It held that the trial court validly exercised its power under Order XVI Rule 7 CPC to direct the Patwari to give further evidence and produce the relevant khasra girdawari records.

The production of those records did not alter the plaintiffs’ case or prejudice the petitioner, who retained the right of cross-examination and rebuttal evidence.

The petition under Article 227 was dismissed, and the trial court’s order dated 12 January 2026 was upheld.