The Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot invoke Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to direct production of new documents after a suit has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11. The Court emphasized that this power applies only during the pendency of a suit, not afterward.
“The provision enables the Court to seek production of documents during the pendency of the suit,” observed the Bench.
The case concerned a land dispute where the Trial Court had rejected the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and injunction, citing legal defects. Following this, the First Appellate Court directed the Tehsildar to produce the 1939–40 mutation register, a key land record, using Order XI Rule 14 CPC. This direction was later upheld by the Karnataka High Court.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Denies Bail to Ex-IPS Officer Sanjiv Bhatt in 1990 Custodial Death Case
A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra overturned the High Court’s decision. The Court stated that once the plaint is rejected, the suit effectively ends, and no stage remains for introducing new evidence. Therefore, the Appellate Court can only examine whether the rejection was proper, and cannot look into the merits or call for documents not part of the original record.
“In Regular Appeal pending before the First Appellate Court, the Court is not required to decide the merits of the controversy. It can only review the validity of the order rejecting the plaint,” the judgment stated.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Says Owning Spyware Not Illegal; Real Question is Who It's Used Against in Pegasus Case
The Court also pointed out that the High Court erred by allowing the production of documents through the Appellate Court when the suit had already been rejected. The invocation of Order XI Rule 14 CPC in such circumstances was found to be misconceived and beyond jurisdiction.
“The order passed allowing the production of Mutation Register suffers from an error of jurisdiction; it is hereby set aside,” the Court added.
Read Also:- CJI Warns Lawyer: "Don't Make Political Speeches In Court" During Plea Mention Against Collegium System
However, the Court upheld another part of the High Court’s decision which allowed the respondent to raise additional grounds in the pending appeal. The Supreme Court clarified that raising legal grounds is permissible, but introducing new evidence is not, when the suit has been dismissed at the threshold.
The case, titled SRI SHRIKANTH NS & ORS. vs. K. MUNIVENKATAPPA & ANR., has brought clarity on the limited role of Appellate Courts in appeals concerning rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11.
“No other documents can be seen by the Trial Court or by the Appellate Court while dealing with a rejection of plaint,” the Court emphasized.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Anchit Singla, Adv. Ms. Geetanjali Bedi, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Mary Vimala Bai P., AOR Ms. Mary Vimala Bai, Adv. Mr. Rajkamal Tanwar, Adv. Mr. Shivanagowda Dodamani, Adv. Mr. Ankit, Adv. Ms. Deepshikha, Adv.
