Order XI Rule 21 CPC inapplicable to non-production under Rule 14: Raj HC

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that the drastic power under Order XI Rule 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked only in cases of non-compliance with orders relating to interrogatories, discovery or inspection of documents, and not for alleged breach of an order directing production of documents under Order XI Rule 14 CPC. The Court further reiterated that dismissal of a suit under Rule 21 requires proof of wilful default, obstinacy or contumacy.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Sandeep Shah in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1393/2008, Legal Representatives of Shri Om Prakash & Ors. vs Balwant & Ors., decided on 26.02.2026 201800013932008_5.

The appellants–plaintiffs had instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 09.04.2001 for sale of agricultural land. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants moved an application seeking production of original account books for the period 23.05.1999 to 05.05.2001. On 23.03.2006, the trial court passed an order directing the plaintiffs to produce the account books.

Subsequently, alleging non-compliance of the said order, the defendants moved an application under Order XI Rule 21(1) CPC seeking dismissal of the suit. By order dated 03.09.2008, the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadra allowed the application and dismissed the suit, holding that there was deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 23.03.2006 201800013932008_5.

Before the High Court, counsel for the appellants argued that the order dated 23.03.2006 was, in substance, one under Order XI Rule 14 CPC (production of documents), though it mentioned Rule 12. It was submitted that Rule 21(1) CPC does not extend to non-compliance of orders under Rule 14. It was further contended that the plaintiffs had produced the account books in their possession and had clarified that certain books belonged to the father of Om Prakash and were not in their custody. Reliance was placed on Babbar Sewing Machine Co. v. Trilok Nath Mahajan, (1978) 4 SCC 188, to contend that Rule 21 should be invoked only in extreme cases involving wilful default.

The respondents supported the impugned order, contending that the plaintiffs had agreed to produce the documents and later resiled, thereby committing wilful default justifying dismissal of the suit.

Framing two questions for consideration—(i) under what circumstances power under Order XI Rule 21(1) CPC can be exercised, and (ii) whether such power could be invoked in the present case—the Court undertook a detailed examination of the scheme of Order XI CPC.

The Court noted that Order XI Rule 21(1) applies only where there is failure to comply with an order to answer interrogatories (Rule 11), to make discovery of documents (Rule 12), or to permit inspection (Rule 15). The Legislature consciously did not include non-compliance of an order under Rule 14 (production of documents) within the ambit of Rule 21 201800013932008_5.

The Court held that “production of documents” under Rule 14 and “discovery of documents” under Rule 12 operate in distinct fields and are governed by different procedures. Therefore, proceedings under Rule 21 cannot be initiated for non-compliance of an order passed under Rule 14 201800013932008_5.

Applying the above principles to the facts, the Court observed that although the order dated 23.03.2006 referred to Rule 12, its language clearly showed that it was in substance an order directing production of documents under Rule 14. Consequently, Rule 21(1) CPC could not have been invoked.

The Court further found that even otherwise, the trial court had not recorded any finding of wilful default, obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the plaintiffs. The record reflected that the plaintiffs had produced the account books in their possession and had explained that certain books belonged to their father and were not within their custody. The earlier writ petition filed by the defendants had also been dismissed, with liberty to seek adverse inference or to lead secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the provisions of Order XI Rule 21(1) CPC were not applicable in the case, and that no case of wilful default had been established. The impugned order dated 03.09.2008 dismissing the suit was quashed and set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial from the stage at which the order had been passed. The respondents were granted liberty to seek adverse inference or to move for leading secondary evidence in accordance with law 201800013932008_5.

Case Title
Legal Representatives of Shri Om Prakash & Ors. vs Balwant & Ors.

Case Number
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1393/2008

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Sandeep Shah

Date of Order
26/02/2026

Advocates
For the appellants: Mr. Gopi Ram Goyal
For the respondents: Mr. Amit Saran; Mr. Raj Bishnoi; Mr. S.S. Gour

Judgments Relied Upon
Babbar Sewing Machine Co. v. Trilok Nath Mahajan, (1978) 4 SCC 188; Faiz Mohammed v. Bulaki Khan (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.990/2010)