[2025:RJ-JP:41846] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15597/2025 Ayub Khan S/o Fool Mohammad Khan, aged about 42 Years, R/o Plot No. 61 Raghunathpuri Kalwad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Gopal Lal Poorvia S/o Moolchand, aged about 62 Years, R/o C-89, J.P. Colony, Imli Wala Fatak, Jaipur. 2. Mahipal Choudhary S/o Shri Sukhram, aged about 35 Years, R/o Maliyon Ki Dhani, Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). 3. Smt. Ameen Bano W/o Pyare Mohammad, aged about 51 Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Bismillah Colony, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 14/10/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 15.04.2025, whereby the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the production of the original allotment letter dated 15.07.1998, along with the site plan, was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is arbitrary and perverse, as in order to prove the averments of the plaint, the respondent is required to stand upon his legs; therefore, no such direction for production of document under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 CPC ought to have been passed. 3. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the relevant record. 4. From the record of the case, it is evident that the suit for possession, declaration, permanent injunction and payment of [2025:RJ-JP:41846] (2 of 2) [CW-15597/2025] mesne profit @ Rs.10,000/- per month has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner and proforma respondents while stating that the suit property was allotted to the respondent vide allotment letter dated 25.05.1995 but the petitioner and proforma respondents by way of forged documents claiming their rights over the suit property. In the suit, the respondent has categorically stated that the petitioner and proforma respondents have taken possession of the suit property on the basis of a fraudulent document; therefore, the respondent has filed the application for summoning of the alleged allotment letter dated 15.07.1998, along with the site plan, which is in the power and possession of the present petitioner. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the Court has considered the fact that the summoning of the aforesaid documents is very much relevant for the adjudication of the suit; therefore, the Court has directed the petitioner to produce the alleged allotment letter dated 15.07.1998 along with the site plan. 6. Since the document in question is in the possession and power of the petitioner and the said document is very much essential for adjudication of the suit, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity in passing the impugned order, so as to call for any interference. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 8. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-14