Order XI CPC Discovery No Substitute for Public Documents a Litigant Can Obtain: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner sued for a permanent injunction, saying the respondent department had sanctioned a water pond (‘diggi’) on his land but later changed its location and started construction at a different site (para 2). He applied under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC for production of the sanction order, the Chak Plan and the survey sheet, said to be in the department's custody; the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Kolayat (Bikaner) rejected the application on 09.07.2026 (paras 1, 2.1). In the writ petition he argued that the documents were highly relevant and that without them the very purpose of the suit would be frustrated (para 3). The order records no appearance for the respondents.

The Court explained that Rules 12 and 14 of Order XI govern discovery and production of documents in the opposite party's possession or power, and that the power is discretionary, turning on the relevance and necessity of the documents (para 5). Relying on Omkar Nath v. District Judge (Allahabad High Court), it noted that the party seeking discovery must have made its best effort to find the document (para 5.1). The provisions contemplate documents the applicant cannot procure despite reasonable efforts; for public documents that the party can obtain, the governing principles "assume greater significance", as the Karnataka High Court held of a sanction plan obtainable under the RTI Act in Melvin Isaac v. Michael Isaac Patrick (para 5.2). The pond documents formed part of the department's official record and copies could be obtained under the applicable law; the alleged refusal of an RTI application was unsupported by proof, and the trial court had noted that application came about two months after the suit was filed (para 5.3). "The processes of court cannot be made a handmaiden of indolent litigators", nor can discovery be used to collect evidence for foundational facts the party must prove (para 5.4).