TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 589
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with Section 151 CPC for summoning documents/record from the Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax Department has been rejected. The petitioner filed a suit seeking cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction inter alia alleging that despite there being an agreement dated 28/6/2004 in favour of the plaintiff, the land in question was transferred by respondent no.1 through registered sale deed dated 13/5/2005 in favour of respondent no.2; allegations were also made that the land in question has been transferred in favour of respondent no.2 as Benami, in fact the sale deed has been got executed by respondent no.3 with a view to finish the right of the petitioner. Based on the submissions, the relief for cancellation was sought. The suit w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner failed to point out the date, month and year when the order was passed, in view of provisions of Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 ('the Act, 1988') even if the transaction is found to be Benami, the petitioner cannot get the relief and that the documents in question were not relevant. The trial court also came to the conclusion that the suit was pending since the year 2005 and was at final stage and, therefore, it was not justified to summon the record and consequently rejected the application. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application inasmuch as the petitioner has taken a specific plea in the plaint about the transaction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation has been filed. It was submitted that the documents are wholly irrelevant and that the application made is not bonafide. With reference to various issues framed, it was submitted that there was no occasion for the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence and, therefore, the prayer made for summoning the documents was even otherwise baseless. It was emphasized that the petitioner did not move any application under Order VII Rule 14 or Order XI CPC and straightaway made an application under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC, which cannot be countenanced and in fact deserves to be rejected. It was prayed that the petition deserves to be rejected. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material av....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge of rebuttal evidence based on the fact that the Income Tax Department had initiated action qua the land in question under the Act of 1988 and had attached property, which information came to light on account of a communication written by the office of Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax Department to Registration Department requiring the department not to register the transaction qua the land in question, which documents have been produced by the petitioner, annexed to the application filed under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC (Annex.6) and attempts made under Right to Information Act having failed, apparently the application was filed for summoning of the documents before leading rebuttal evidence. The trial court by its order impugned, on the one h....