1 2025:CGHC:31222 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 739 of 2023 1. Jabbar Mohammed S/o Abdul Gaffar Aged About 72 Years R/o Pendridih, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 1) 2. Kailash Notra S/o Shri Jashpal Notra Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Green Park Colony, Jarhabhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 3) 3. Ashok Notra S/o Shri Jashpal Notra Aged About 53 Years Resident Of Green Park Colony, Jarhabhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 4) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Vahab Mohammed S/o Abdul Gaffar Aged About 70 Years R/o Tenganmada Karwa, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Plaintiff) 2. Nawab Mohammed S/o Abdul Gaffar Aged About 71 Years R/o Pendridih, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 2) 3. Saroj W/o Amarjeet Notra Aged About 70 Years R/o Near Mama Bhancha Talab, Tikrapara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 5) 4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 6) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 08-07-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Judge to First Civil Judge, Class–II, Bilha, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2022 dated 20.06.2023 whereby application under Order 11 Rule 16 of CPC filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed. 2) Facts of the present case are that plaintiff [respondent No. 1] instituted civil suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction pertaining to Khasra Nos. 267, 267/1, 267/3 and 268 situated at P.H. No. 10, Village Pendridih, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur. Plaintiff also sought relief to declare the sale-deed dated 06.07.1992 null and void including mutation No. 17 dated 26.07.1992. Plaintiff moved application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction and defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 [petitioners] filed reply. Plaintiff moved application under Order 11 Rule 16 of CPC and notice for production of power of attorney dated 06.07.1992 executed by plaintiffs in favor of defendant No. 1 and sale-deeds executed by one Ashish Pandey in favor of defendants No. 3 and 4 dated 14.09.2016 and 01.05.2016. Defendants failed to provide those documents, therefore learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.06.2023 allowed the application. 3) Mr. Ravish Verma, counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner 3 [defendants No. 1, 3 and 4] submits that according to the provisions of Order 11 Rule 16 of CPC, plaintiff was required to serve notice to produce documents referred to in his pleadings or affidavit and it shall be as per Form 7 of Appendix “C” whereas no such notice has been served upon the defendants, therefore the order passed by learned Trial Court is erroneous. He contends that power of attorney dated 06.07.1992 was executed by the plaintiff himself in favor of defendant No. 1, therefore that document cannot be in possession of petitioners. He argues that as petitioners have not filed their written statement and documents as stated in notice have not been referred, therefore, application under Order 11 Rule 16 of CPC was premature. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents oppose. They submit that notice to produce documents in Form-7 of Appendix “C” was submitted before the learned Trial Court and copies were served to defendants, therefore defendants were under obligation either to deny the contents of the notice or to give permission to inspect those documents. They further submit that Order 11 Rule 15 of CPC allows a party to a suit to give notice to another party to produce for inspection documents that are referred to in the other party's pleadings or affidavits. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6) In the present case, as informed by Mr. Verma on instruction that 4 defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 have not filed their written statement till date. Therefore, considering the language used in Order 11 Rule 15 of CPC and further the fact that written statement has not been filed by petitioners, in opinion of this Court, the application/ notice under Order 11 Rule 16 moved by the plaintiff was premature. 7) Accordingly, the order passed by learned Trial Court dated 20.06.2023 is hereby set-aside and thus, instant petition stands allowed. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. 8) However, plaintiff would be at liberty to revive his prayer at appropriate stage, if so advised. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.08 18:31:48 +0530