Order 23

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF ANUBHAV JAIN,
LD. DISTRICT JUDGE-05, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 199/2021
NEMI KUMAR GOYAL AND ANR v. NEELAM TANWAR
AND ANR
07.04.2026
ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XI RULE
12 CPC
1. Present order shall dispose off the application under Order
XI Rule 12 CPC filed by the plaintiff Nemi Kumar whereby he
seeks production of following documents from defendant no. 1:
a. Rent Agreement dated 05.01.2021 in favour of Sh. Nitin
Jain (Page No. 62-64 of the written statement).
b. Rent agreement dated 04.02.2021 in favour of Sh. Amit
Kumar Bisht (Page no. 65-67 of the written statement).
c. Rent Agreement dated 09.02.2021 in favour of M/s. Ample
Enterprise (Page No. 72-74 of the written statement).
2. In brief, the facts of the case as stated by the plaintiff in his
plaint are that he has purchased the suit property bearing no. WZ-
1656 B, Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046 from Smt. Priyanka
Tanwar. It is further stated that Sh. Jatin Tanwar was actual
owner of the suit property and he expired on 21.09.2020
whereupon the suit property devolves upon first Class-I Legal
Heir i.e. his wife Priyanka Tanwar and his minor son namely,
Rishi Tanwar. It is further stated that Priyanka Tanwar sold the
first floor of the suit property in favour of plaintiff herein by
CS No. 199/2021 Page Nos. 1/5
-- 1 of 5 --
virtue of registered sale deed dated 25.01.2021. It is further stated
that plaintiff in the first week of February 2021, came to know
that front portion of first floor was occupied by defendant no. 2
and further defendant no. 2 informed the plaintiff that the said
portion was let out to him by defendant no. 1.
2.1 It is further stated that plaintiff being registered owner of
the suit premises has never permitted defendant no. 1 to let out
the premises to defendant no.2 and that possession of defendant
no. 2 is unauthorized, illegal and wrongful. It is further stated
that defendant no. 1 have also issued legal notice in this regard
upon defendant no. 2 however he failed to hand over the
possession of the suit property to plaintiff herein.
2.2 By way of present suit, plaintiff has sought declaration that
the possession of defendant no. 2 in the front portion of the 1st
floor is unlawful, illegal and unauthorized and he has further
sought that defendant be directed to hand over the possession of
the same to the plaintiff herein.
WRITTEN STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT NO. 1:
3. in reply thereof, written statement was filed by defendant
no. 1 wherein defendant no. 1 claimed that suit property is joint
and ancestral property of defendant no. 1 and Smt. Priyanka
Tanwar. It is further stated that although plaintiffs are claiming
injunction upon the property bearing no. WZ-1656 B, Nangal
Raya, New Delhi-110046 however, they are claiming property
no. WZ-1656-A, Village Nangal Raya, New Delhi wherein
CS No. 199/2021 Page Nos. 2/5
-- 2 of 5 --
defendant no. 1 co-owner with Priyanka Tanwar. It is further
stated that defendant no. 1 being co-owner in the property,
husband of Priyanka Tanwar namely Jatin Tanwar does not have
any right, title or interest to sell the suit property. Answering
defendants further claimed that documents so relied by plaintiff
are forged and fabricated. It is further stated that defendant no. 2
is a tenant in the suit premises. Answering defendants further
denied all the other averments so made by the plaintiff in his
plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XI RULE 12 CPC:
4. It is further stated that the plaintiff/applicant in the present
application that defendant no. 1 in his WS has alleged that the
property no. WZ-1656-B, Nangal Raya New Delhi-46 is actually
property no. WZ-1656-A, Nangal Raya New Delhi-46. It is
further alleged that defendant no. 1 in order to succeed in her
illegal designs has committed forgery by giving false evidence in
judicial proceedings. That defendant no. 1 in order to substantiate
her false claim has forged and fabricated following documents:
I. Rent Agreement dated 05.01.2021 in favour of Sh. Nitin
Jain (Page No. 62-64 of the written statement).
II. Rent Agreement dated 04.02.2021 in favour of Sh. Amit
Kumar Bisht (Page No. 65-67 of the written statement).
III) Rent Agreement dated 09.02.2021 in favour of M/s. Ample
Enterprises (Page no. 72-74 of the Written Statement).
5. It is further submitted that the rent agreement dated
05.01.2021 has been filed by Nitin Jain along with his written
CS No. 199/2021 Page Nos. 3/5
-- 3 of 5 --
statement in CS No. 197/21, bare perusal of which reveals that
rented property is mentioned as property no. 1656-B, whereas in
the copy of very said document which is filed by defendant no. 1
the property number is mentioned as 1656-A. It is further stated
that bare perusal of the said document goes to show that the rent
agreement dated 04.02.2021 has been forged and fabricated by
defendant no. 1, since they have changed the original number
1656 B to 1656 A upon the same. It is further stated that
defendant no. 1 has deliberately committed the offence of
forgery, fabrication of documents etc. punishable under Sections
of Indian Penal Code.
6. With regards to application under Order XI Rule 12 CPC,
plaintiff seeks direction for defendant no. 1 to place on record
original rent agreement dated 04.02.2021 executed between
defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2, apart from other rent
agreements which was executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of
other tenants.
7. It is averred that as per rent agreement so placed by
defendant no. 2 the number of property is reflected to be as WZ-
1656 B, while as per the photocopy of the rent agreement so
placed by defendant no. 1 herein the number of the property is
reflected to be as WZ-1656-A,Village Nangal Raya, New Delhi-
46. It is further stated that defendant no. 1 has knowingly and
intentionally change the property number in the rent agreement
and that original rent agreement is necessary for appropriate
disposal of the present case.
CS No. 199/2021 Page Nos. 4/5
-- 4 of 5 --
8. Since both the same documents reflect different property
numbers and the same is necessary for proper adjudication of the
case on merits, the present application under XI Rule 12 CPC so
filed by the plaintiff is partly allowed to the extent of rent
agreement executed between defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2
i.e. agreement dated 04.02.2021. Since the other persons in
favour whom the rent agreement was executed by defendant no.
1 (discovery of which is sought by the plaintiff by way of present
application) are not party to the present suit, this court is of the
view that no fruitful purpose will be achieved by summoning the
said rent agreement.
9. Defendant no. 1 is directed to produce original rent
agreement dated 04.02.2021 executed between her and defendant
no. 2.
10. Application stands disposed off accordingly.
(Anubhav Jain)
District Judge-05 (New Delhi District)
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
07.04.2026
CS No. 199/2021 Page Nos. 5/5
-- 5 of 5 --