1. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter as ‘trial court’) in Civil Suit No.39/2018 whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the application dated 11.12.2024 (Annex.3) filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 12 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter as ‘CPC’). The prayer clause of the instant petition is reproduced as under:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed . that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an order; writ or direction:-

1. The orders dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure-6) and order dated passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur, In Civil Case No. 39/2018(238/2018) may kindly be quashed and set aside and application filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed.

2. the defendant produce both the survey report along with incomplete documents and give a permission to the petitioner exhibit in cross examination of the defendant witness of the said documents filed by the defendants.

3. Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

4. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner got insured its factory building, plant and machineries, electrical and other installation, raw material, finished goods, stock in process and packing material from the respondent. Subsequently, on 24.10.1999 a fire broke out at the factory of the petitioner and as a result the petitioner suffered loss. The petitioner informed about the incident to the respondent and also submitted its claim for the loss suffered due the fire. Thereafter, preliminary survey of loss was conducted by Mr. M.S. Senani and the preliminary survey report dated 04.12.1999 along with enclosed documents was submitted by him before the respondent. Thereafter, final survey and assessment report dated 07.03.2000 was also submitted by the surveyor before the respondent. As the respondent failed to release the claim amount, the petitioner filed the suit (Annex.1) for recovery of money. The respondent filed its written statement (Annex.2) denying the averments made in the suit. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the application dated 11.12.2024 (Annex.3) under Order XI Rule 12 and 14 of the CPC before the learned trial court seeking discovery and production of the original preliminary survey report dated 04.12.1999 as well as the final survey and assessment report dated 07.03.2000 along with the documents annexed therein by the respondent. The respondent filed its reply (Annex.5) to the application (Annex.3) and also submitted photocopies of the preliminary survey report dated 04.12.1999 as well as the final survey and assessment report dated 07.03.2000 along with enclosures. The learned trial court vide order dated 15.01.2025 dismissed the application (Annex.3). Aggrieved by the same instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court has erred in dismissing the application (Annex.3) on ground that the documents sought to be produced have already been placed on record by the petitioner as Ex.4 and Ex.8 whereas Ex.4 and Ex.8 are only Survey reports but all the documents are not annexed with them. He submitted that the respondent has not produced original documents enclosed with survey reports dated 04.12.1999 and 07.03.2000 but only photocopies of the same. He further submitted that the respondent has already produced photocopies of Survey reports dated 04.12.1999 and 07.03.2000 enclosed with some of the documents along with its reply (Annex.5), therefore, there was no occasion for the learned trial court to reject the application (Annex.3). He also submitted that the learned trial court has erred in not permitting the petitioner to exhibit the documents which were produced by the respondent along with his reply (Annex.5). He placed reliance upon the following judgments: Arun Kumar vs. Dharmchand Jain, (2016) 4 CivCC 183; Puny Kalu and Anr. vs. Sankar Kal, AIR 1961 MP 348; India Foils Ltd. vs. The 5th Industrial Tribunal, W.B. And Other, AIR 1972 Cal 308; Ratan Lal Pungalia vs. Abdul Aziz, (2003) 1 DNJ 220; Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors., AIR 2021 SC 2161; V.M. Jankiamma and Anr. vs. Ajit Laxmikant Mudgal and Ors., AIR 2021 Bom 78; Bhimjibhai Narshihbhai Malaviya vs. Prathmesh Farms Private Ltd., AIR 2025 Guj 15; C. Siva Ranadheer Raju vs. K. Prasanna Lakshmi Alias Lakshmi Prathyusha, AIR 2023 AP 43; Rajkishore Prasad and ors. vs The State of Orissa and ors, AIR 1979 Orissa 96; M/s Paras Drugs and Chemical Industries and ors. vs. UCO Bank and ors., AIR 2001 Raj 356.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent could not produce the original documents as the original record has fallen apart due to efflux of time as well as on account of different proceedings that were initiated by the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner has itself placed on record the documents as Ex.4 and Ex.8 which were sought to be produced vide application (Annex.3), hence, the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application (Annex.3). He also submitted that the respondent, along with reply (Annex.5) to the application (Annex.3), produced the documents enclosed with both the survey reports dated 04.12.1999 and 07.03.2000 and also furnished an affidavit in this regard. He also submitted that, though the petitioner is seeking to exhibit the documents which were produced by the respondent along with reply (Annex.5) but he has not filed any appropriate application in this regard before the learned trial court. He submits that the prayer for exhibiting these documents cannot be allowed by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance on the following judgments: M/s Triveni Brokers vs. M/s Hira Ram Hansa Ram and ors. [S.B.C.W.P. No.2222/2024, decided on 19.03.2024]; Mr. M.Sivasamy vs. M/s Vestergaard Frandsen A/S & Ors., 2009 113 DRJ 820; Rajan Gupta vs. Manoj Gupta [CM(M) No. 36/2022, decided on 13.09.2023].

5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. This court at the outset finds that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court has erred in not permitting the petitioner to exhibit the documents which were produced by the respondent along with its reply (Annex.5) does not have substance in it as the petitioner has not filed any appropriate application before the learned trial court in this regard and has made prayer in this regard for the first time before this court. Further, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner does not render any support to the case of the petitioner.

7. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the original documents enclosed with the survey reports dated 04.12.1999 and 07.03.2000 have not been produced by the respondent is concerned this court finds that the respondent has categorically stated in its reply (Annex.5) that the original survey reports dated 04.12.1999 and 07.03.2000 along with enclosures are not in possession of the respondent. This court also finds that the learned trial court has observed that the suit (Annex.1) was filed way back in 2014 and the documents which the petitioner has sought to be produced vide application (Annex.3) under Order XI Rule 12 and 14 of CPC appear to be in power and possession of the petitioner itself as both the survey reports dated 04.12.1999 and 07.03.2000 are exhibited in its evidence, however, the petitioner has not raised any objection at that time that it has received incomplete documents enclosed with these reports. The learned trial court has also observed that the documents which the petitioner has sought to be produced vide application (Annex.3) appear to be in his possession as the same have been exhibited as Ex.4 and Ex.8.

8. This court finds that there is no substance in the contention raised by the petitioner regarding production of the original documents as firstly, the petitioner has already exhibited both the survey reports dated 04.12.1999 and 07.03.2000 as Ex.4 and Ex.8 respectively, in its evidence and the petitioner has nowhere raised the objection that these reports were incomplete prior to the filing of the application (Annex.3); secondly, the respondent has clearly stated in his reply (Annex.5) that the original survey reports dated 04.12.1999 and 07.03.2000 are not in its possession; thirdly, respondent has produced the photocopies of both these original survey reports dated 04.12.1999 and 07.03.2000 with the enclosures along with its reply (Annex.5), which were sought to be produced vide application (Annex.3). Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application (Annex.3) filed by the petitioner.

9. In view of the above, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

10. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to the cost.