C.R. No. 7703 of 2009 1 ` IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7703 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.1.2010 Pawan Kumar Bansal .......... Petitioner Versus Mangal Sain Bansal & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2009, passed by the learned trial Court, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Order 11 Rules 12 & 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands allowed. The petitioner sought production of statement of account, details of demat account, as well as the pass book, issued in the name of defendant No.2, on the plea that the same was required to be exhibited in evidence. The learned trial Court rightly held, that the Court could not direct a party to produce the documents, therefore, dismissed the application. As per the settled law, if the documents sought for production, are necessary and withheld by a party, it is always open to a party to pray to C.R. No. 7703 of 2009 2 ` the Court for drawing adverse inference on account of non-production of those documents, therefore, there was hardly any ground to challenge the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, insisted that the revision be decided on merit as the documents, the production of which was sought, were necessary for adjudication of the claim of the petitioner, therefore, the learned trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary to note the relief claimed in suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for declaration, that he is owner of half share of house being ancestral property of his father. Plaintiff also claimed share in the share certificates in the name of defendants No.1 & 2, on the plea that these have been purchased by the money spent by the plaintiff / petitioner. The suit filed, clearly shows that the plaintiff has no right to call for documents, asked for, by moving application under Order 11 Rules 11 & 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff has no right to claim the property purchased by defendants in their own names, as the Benami transactions are not permissible in law. The property belongs to the person, in whose name the property is registered. Even in order to prove, as to whether the share certificates have been purchased from the funds of the plaintiff, it was for the plaintiff to prove, the payment made for purchase. The petitioner is not claiming right under partnership, so that the petitioner as a partner could call for the details of the property held by the defendants. C.R. No. 7703 of 2009 3 ` The suit filed by the plaintiff is merely for declaration under inheritance of the property left by his father. It is for the plaintiff to prove his case, that the property in the hands of defendant / respondents belonged to the father of the parties. The petitioner / plaintiff cannot claim any share in the property which is in the name of defendants No.1 & 2. The documents of which production was sought, therefore, are not relevant to the matter in issue, nor are necessary for adjudication of the case. No ground, therefore, is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court. No merit. Dismissed. 15.1.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE