Discovery and Inspection
1. Discovery by interrogatories.—
In any suit the Plaintiff or Defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories
in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such
parties and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof
stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer :
Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the
same party without an order for that purpose :
Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question
in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible
on the oral cross-examination of a witness.
Case Cited
1. Delhi Vanaspati v. K. C. Chawla; MANU/JK/0019/1983: AIR 1983 J&K 65.
2. Shamrao v. Motiram MANU/NA/0032/1934: AIR 1934 Nagpur 181; Bhakta Charan
Mallik v. Nataorar Mallik MANU/OR/0079/1991: AIR 1991 Ori 319; Shri Janaki Ballav
Patnaik v. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. MANU/OR/0060/1989: AIR 1989 Ori 216.
3. Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi MANU/SC/0366/1972: AIR 1972 SC 1302.
4. K. Meenakshisundaram v. S.R. Radhakrishna Pillai MANU/TN/0192/1960: AIR 1960 Mad 184.
5. Smt. Sharda Dhir v. Sh. Ashok Kumar Makhija MANU/DE/1021/2002: AIR 2003 Del 288.
6. The Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Avon Footwear Industries Pvt. Ltd.
MANU/DE/0198/1985: AIR 1986 Del 286.
7. Ganga Devi v. Krushna Prasad Sharma MANU/OR/0010/1967 : ILR (1964) Cuttack
958; Bhakta Charan Mallik v. Nataorar Mallik MANU/OR/0079/1991: AIR 1991 Ori 319.
8. J. B. Patnaik v. Bennett & Coleman; MANU/OR/0060/1989: AIR 1989 Ori 216.
9. Meenakshi v. Radha Krishnan; MANU/TN/0192/1960: AIR 1960 Mad 184.
SYNOPSIS
1. Discovery by interrogatories-
scope .........................................
2. When interrogatories should not be
allowed ......................................
1. Discovery by interrogatories.
The nature of Plaintiff’s case is disclosed in his plaint and nature of the Defendant’s
case is disclosed in his written statement. Where plaint or written statement is vague,
the party who seeks to get the deficiency made good from his opponent may apply
for leave of the Court to administer interrogatories on him and if the leave is granted,
the opposite party shall answer the interrogatories on oath. This is called discovery
by interrogatories. The interrogatories may also be sought to be served for obtaining
admissions from opponent (Delhi Vanaspati v. K. C. Chawla).1
The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses and shorten the litigation by
enabling a party to obtain from his opponent information as to material facts regarding
the question in dispute between them or to obtain admission of any facts which he
has to prove on any issue which is raised between them. As a general rule, interrogatories
are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either to maintain the case
O 11, R, 1]
of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The power
to serve interrogatories as it appears is not meant to be confined within narrow
technical limits. It should be used liberally whenever, it can shorten litigation and
serve the interest of justice. However, this can be exercised within certain limits. The
power to order interrogatories to be served and answer should be used with considerable
care and caution, so that it is not abused by any party (Shamrao v. Motiram; Bhakta
Charan Mallik v. Nataorar Mallik; Shri Janaki Ballav Patnaik v. Bennett Coleman and
Co. Ltd.).2
“Matters in question”
The purpose of the rule is to shorten the litigation therefore, the Court should not
grant leave where it appears that the party seeking to administer or serve interrogatories
is using the rule as a tool for causing adjournment of hearing of the case. Questions
that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as
interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those
relating to “any matters in question”. The interrogatories served must have reasonably
close connection with “matters in question” (Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi).3It
is true that under Order 11 Rule 1 and the following rules of that order, the election
tribunal acting as a tribunal in conformity with the rules of the Civil Procedure Code,
is empowered to order interrogatories. But, before interrogatories could be ordered
it is also incumbent upon the Tribunal functioning as a judicial authority to apply its
mind and see the effect, import and significance of the interrogatories that are
sought to be administered to the respondent by the petitioner in the original petition
(K. Meenakshisundaram v. S.R. Radhakrishna Pillai).4
“Knowing the case of the opponent”
The object of this rule is that a party knows the nature of his opponent’s case before
hand in order to meet it at the hearing. Indeed, he is not entitled to know the facts
which constitute evidence to prove the opponent’s case. One of the important purposes
of interrogatories is to obtain admission of material fact of a case. The nature of the
case of the parties is disclosed in their respective pleadings but in a given case the
pleadings may not sufficiently disclose the nature of the parties’ case. In order to
make good deficiency this rule has been enacted. Administering of interrogatories is
to be encouraged as it is a means of obtaining admissions of parties and tends to
shorten litigation. As a general rule the interrogatory should be allowed, whether the
answer to them would either strengthen the case of the party administering them or
to destroy the case of the adversary. This rule is to be used liberally whenever it could
shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice. Indeed, it cannot be used as
a means of obtaining information which may be admissible during the oral cross-
examination of a party and his witnesses. It cannot be disallowed merely because,
the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question.
Under this rule the interrogatories may be served with the leave of the Court by one
party to the other in a suit- (1) to ascertain the nature of his opponent’s case and
material facts constituting it and (2) to support his own case by obtaining admissions
or by impeaching or destroying his opponent’s case (Smt. Sharda Dhir v. Sh. Ashok
Kumar Makhija).5 However, the power to allow interrogatories to be administered by
one party to another is always subject to the discretion of the Court (The Rajasthan
Golden Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Avon Footwear Industries Pvt. Ltd.)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[O 11, R. 2
2. When interrogatories should not be allowed.
In following cases the leave to serve interrogatories should be refused:
(a) where the party seeking to serve the interrogatories, appears to be using
the rule as a tool to cause adjournment of the hearing of the case,
(b) where the interrogatories are sought to be administered for obtaining discovery
of facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of his opponent’s case
or title (Ganga Devi v. Krushna Prasad Sharma; Bhakta Charan Mallik v.
Nataorar Mallik).7
(c) Where the party is seeking to obtain privileged confidential communication
between his opponent and his counsel (J. B. Patnaik v. Bennett & Coleman).8
(d) Where the disclosures sought to be procured may be injurious to public
interests.
(e) Where the answer to interrogatory may make the opponent liable to criminal
prosecution (Meenakshi v. Radha Krishnan).9
(f) Where only names of witnesses likely to be examined are sought to be
disclosed.
2. Particular interrogatories to be submitted.—
On an application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the particular interrogatories
proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the Court and that Court shall decide
within seven days from the day of filing of the said application. In deciding upon such
application, the Court shall take into account any offer, which may be made by the
party sought to be interrogated to deliver particulars, or to make admissions, or to
produce documents relating to the matters in question, or any of them, and leave
shall be given as to such only of the interrogatories submitted as the Court shall
consider necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.
ANNOTATIONS
Amendments
The Code of Civil Procedure Amendment
Act 1999, in Rule 2, inserted the words
“and that court shall decide within seven
days from the day of filing of the said
application,” after the words “submitted to
the court”.
Effective Date of Amendment
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 1999 wef. 01.07.2002
Prior to the Code of Civil Procedure
Amendment Act 1999, Order 11 Rule 2
used to read as under:
1006
2. Particular interrogatories to be
submitted.–– On an application for
leave to deliver interrogatories, the
particular interrogatories proposed to
be delivered shall be submitted to the
Court. In deciding upon such
application, the Court shall take into
account any offer, which may be made
by the party sought to be interrogated
to deliver particulars, or to make
admissions, or to produce documents
relating to the matters in question, or
any of them, and leave shall be given
as to such only of the interrogatories
O 11, R, 4]
Order 11
submitted as the Court shall consider
necessary either for disposing fairly
of the suit or for saving costs.
Order 11 Rule 1 (Discovery by
interrogatories)
Order 11 Rule 3 (Costs of interrogatories)
Order 11 Rule 4 (Form of interrogatories)
Section 30 (Power to order discovery and
the like)
Case Cited
1. Kesarimal v. Union of India, MANU/WB/0100/1964: AIR 1964 Cal 545.
2. Raj Narain v. Indira N. Gandhi, MANU/SC/0366/1972: AIR 1972 SC 1302.
COMMENTS
While taking decision on the leave sought by a party to administer interrogatories on
his opponent, the Court may take into account the offer or readiness to answer the
interrogatories sought to be served upon him by such opponent. However, the rule
does not apply to Arbitration proceedings (Kesarimal v. Union of India).1 Interrogatories
sought to be served must have close connection with the matters in issue (Raj Narain
v. Indira N. Gandhi).2
3. Costs of interrogatories.—
In adjusting the costs of the suit inquiry shall at the instance of any party be made
into the propriety of exhibiting such interrogatories, and if it is the opinion of the taxing
officer or of the Court, either with or without an application for inquiry, that such
interrogatories have been exhibited unreasonably, vexatiously, or at improper length,
the cost occasioned by the said interrogatories and the answers thereto shall be paid
in any event by the party in fault.
COMMENTS
Where unnecessary interrogatories are sought to be administered to delay the proceedings
of the suit the Court should impose heavy costs on the party seeking to administer
the interrogatories.
4. Form of interrogatories.—
Interrogatories shall be in Form No. 2 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances
may require.
ANNOTATIONS
Reference/Relevance within Statute
Order 11 Rule 2 (Particular interrogatories to be submitted)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[O 11, R. 6
5. Corporations.—
Where any party to a suit is a corporation or a body of persons, whether incorporated
or not, empowered by law to sue or be sued, whether in its own name or in the name
of any officer or other person, any opposite party may apply for an order allowing him
to deliver interrogatories to any member or officer of such corporation or body, and
an order may be made accordingly.
Case Cited
1. Mohd. Mehdi v. Governor General, AIR 1948 Saurashtra 100 (FB).
COMMENTS
Since a corporate body is not a human being, this rule facilitates service of interrogatories
on the person or officer who may sue or be sued either in his own name or on behalf
of the company. But such officer or person is not bound to answer all the interrogatories
on his personal knowledge (Mohd. Mehdi v. Governor General).1
6. Objections to interrogatories by answer.—
Any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or
irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or that the matters
inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage or on the ground of privilege
or any other ground, may be taken in the affidavit in answer.
ANNOTATIONS
Amendment
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act 1976 substituted “or on the ground of
priviledge or any other ground” for the text
“or on any other ground”.
Effective Date of Amendment
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act 1976 w.e.f. 01.02.1977.
Prior to Amendment
Prior to 1976 Amendment Rule 6 use to
read as under:
6. Objections to interrogatories by
answer.—Any objection to answering
any interrogatory on the ground that
it is scandalous or irrelevant or not
exhibited bona fide for the purpose
of the suit, or that the matters inquired
into are not sufficiently material at
that stage or on any other ground
may be taken in the affidavit in
answer.
Case Cited
1. Meenakshi Sundaram v. Radha Krishna, MANU/TN/0192/1960: AIR 1960 Mad 184
2. Rai Mohan v. Kirti, AIR 1961 Trip 23.
3. Smt. Sharda Dhir v. Sh. Ashok Kumar Makhija MANU/DE/1021/2002: AIR 2003 Delhi 288
COMMENTS
Leave to deliver interrogatories does not imply mandamus to answer them and the
opposite party served with interrogatories has a right to raise objections under this
O 11, R, 8]
rule. The opposite party is not bound to answer interrogatories which are irrelevant or
are likely to incriminate him in a criminal offence (Meenakshi Sundaram v. Radha
Krishna).1 Similarly objections regarding privileged confidential communication
(Sections 121 to 129 of Evidence Act), and injuriousness to public safety can also
be raised. The interrogatories can be set aside even after its service as prescribed
under the next Rule 7 of this Order (Rai Mohan v. Kirti).2
The interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question involved in the suit,
indeed, would be deemed irrelevant even though they might be admissible in oral
cross-examination of the witnesses. Rule (6) of Order 11 provides that objection to
answer an interrogatory on the ground that it is scandulous or irrelevant or not required
bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or with the matter inquired into are not sufficiently
material at that stage or on the ground of privilege, or on any other ground will be
taken in the affidavit in answer. Leave to deliver interrogatories does not imply an
Order to answer them and any objection to answer can be taken under the Rule.
Although the court is required to decide whether the Appellant should be allowed to
interrogate the other side, but it is not to determine what question the opposite party
should be compelled to answer (Smt. Sharda Dhir v. Sh. Ashok Kumar Makhija).
7. Setting aside and striking out interrogatories.—
Any interrogatories may be set aside on the ground that they have been exhibited
unreasonably or vexatiously, or struck out on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive,
unnecessary or scandalous; and any application for this purpose may be made within
seven days after service of the interrogatories.
Case Cited
1. Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. v. Avon Footwear Industries, MANU/DE/0198/1985:
AIR 1986 Del 286.
COMMENTS
Where the interrogatories served are vexatious, oppressive or scandalous, the same may
be set aside on an application of the opposite party within seven days of its service. To
ask a party to answer a query which needs examination of account books of many years
is a vexatious interrogatory. The interrogatories for the purpose of fishing out a case can
also be objected to (Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. v. Avon Footwear Industries).1
8. Affidavit in answer, filing.—
Interrogatories shall be answered by affidavit to be filed within ten days, or within
such other time as the Court may allow.
COMMENTS
Time of ten days would start from the date of service of interrogatories. Interrogatories
must be answered in the form of affidavit. For form of affidavit see next Rule 9 (Form
No. 3, App. C). If a party fails to answer interrogatories see Rule 21.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[O 11, R. 12
9. Form of affidavit in answer.—
An affidavit in answer to interrogatories shall be in Form No. 3 in Appendix C, with
such variations as circumstances may require.
10. No exception to be taken.—
No exceptions shall be taken to any affidavit in answer, but the sufficiency or otherwise
of any such affidavit objected to as insufficient shall be determined by the Court.
COMMENTS
This Rule 10 should be read with Rule 11 of this Order which provides that if the
answer given in affidavit is insufficient the concerned party may be directed to give
fresh answer.
11. Order to answer or answer further.—
Where any person interrogated omits to answer, or answers insufficiently, the party
interrogating may apply to the Court for an Order requiring him to answer, or to answer
further, as the case may be. And an Order may be made requiring him to answer or
to answer further, either by affidavit or by viva voce examination, as the Court may
direct.
Case Cited
1. J. D. Dhanda v. Desraj, MANU/PH/0055/1976: AIR 1976 P&H 339.
2. Shamrao v. Motiram MANU/NA/0032/1934: AIR 1934 Nag 181; Y. Venkateswara Rao v.
K. Nagamma MANU/KA/0112/1972 : AIR 1972 Kant 254.
COMMENTS
Where the party served with interrogatories fails to answer or gives insufficient
answer, the Court may direct such party to file fresh affidavit giving complete answer.
The time to file the answer can be extended under this rule (J. D. Dhanda v. Desraj).1
However, Court cannot go to the truthfulness of the answers given by the party
administered with the interrogatories. The Order of the lower Court under Order 11,
Rule 11 asking to make sufficient answers amounts to a case decided and if there
has been a material irregularity in allowing interrogatories which are not necessary
either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs it is necessary to intervene
to prevent injustice being done (Shamrao v. Motiram Y. Venkateswara Rao v. K.
Nagamma).
12. Application for discovery of documents.—
Any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to the Court for an order directing
any other party to any suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are
or have been in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question therein.
On the hearing of such application the Court may either refuse or adjourn the same,
O 11, R, 12]
if satisfied that such discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of
the suit, or make such order, either generally or limited to certain classes of
documents, as may, in its discretion, be thought fit :
Provided that discovery shall not be Ordered when and so far as the Court shall
be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for
saving costs.
Case Cited
1. Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi, MANU/UP/0009/1972: AIR 1972 All 41.
2. Indian Overseas Bank v. Shreekrishna Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. MANU/MH/0364/1988:
AIR 1988 Bom 343.
3. Phoolchand Garg v. Gopaldas Agarwal MANU/MP/0027/1990: AIR 1990 MP 135.
4. J. S. Construction v. Damodar Raut, MANU/OR/0059/1987: AIR 1987 Ori 207.
5. Vinod Kumar v. Shanti Devi, MANU/MP/0005/1986: AIR 1986 MP 19.
6. Union Bank v. Hemant Lal, MANU/GJ/0190/1991: AIR 1991 Guj 113.
7. M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapoor, MANU/SC/0245/1972: AIR 1972 SC 2379.
8. Raj Narain Singh v. Indira Nehru Gandhi, MANU/UP/0009/1972: AIR 1972 All 41.
9. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Abdul
Aziz Sk. Mohd. MANU/MH/0480/2007: 2007 (5) Mah L J 691.
COMMENTS
The object of the rule is to elicit admissions from the opposite party that may
obviate the necessity to produce lengthy evidence (Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru
Gandhi).1 Under Order 11 Rule 12 there is a provision for discovery of documents
by filing an affidavit of documents. Ordinarily under the scheme of Order 11,
affidavits of documents have to be filed after the pleadings are completed. Inspection
is granted of documents which are disclosed in the affidavit of documents thereafter
(Indian Overseas Bank v. Shreekrishna Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd.).2 A party need not
produce any document which he can swear relates to his own title and contains
nothing which tends to establish the title of his opponent. Discovery of such
documents having been denied, there would be no occasion for production and
inspection of such documents. Here to the party seeking discovery of documents
would be justified in contending, if an occasion may arise, that adverse inference
be drawn against the opponent for denying discovery of the documents (Phoolchand
Garg v. Gopaldas Agarwal).
Rule 12 is not intended to enable a party to cause a roving enquiry to fish out
information (J. S. Construction v. Damodar Raut). Power under the rule is
discretionary. The Court can refuse to allow the discovery of documents, if there
is no reasonable prospect of any use of such document (Vinod Kumar v. Shanti
Devi). Where the document sought to be discovered is not relevant, the Court
must refuse the discovery (Union Bank v. Hemant Lal). The rule should not be
permitted to be made a tool for seeking adjournments. The documents relating
to the subject matter in question mean the documents containing information
enabling party to advance its own case or to damage the opponent’s case (M.
L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapoor).7 The rule also applies to election petitions (Raj Narain
Singh v. Indira Nehru Gandhi).8
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[O 11, R. 13
Limitations are contained in Order 11, Rule 12 lays down how an application is to
be made for discovery of documents. The application is for an order directing any
other party to make discovery on oath, of documents which were, or are in his
possession or power, relating to any matter in question therein. Rule 13 specifies what
the affidavit of documents should contain. Rule 15 gives power to a party to
serve notice on the other party in whose pleadings and affidavits reference is made
to any document, to produce such document for inspection. Rule 17 speaks
of how inspection should be given and Rule 18 empowers the Court to
order inspection when inspection has not been given in spite of notice (The
Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Abdul Aziz
Sk. Mohd.).
13. Affidavit of documents.—
The affidavit to be made by a party against whom such order as is mentioned in
the last preceding rule has been made, shall specify which (if any) of the documents
therein mentioned he objects to produce, and it shall be in Form No. 5 in Appendix
C, with such variations as circumstances may require.
Case Cited
1. M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapoor, MANU/SC/0245/1972: AIR 1972 SC 2379.
2. State of Punjab v. S. S. Singh, MANU/SC/0006/1960: AIR 1961 SC 493.
COMMENTS
Where application under Rule 12 of this order for discovery of document, is allowed,
the party against whom the order is passed, if wants to object thereafter will have to
do so in the form of an affidavit in Form No. 5 in App. C of the Code e.g. if the party
who is directed to discover a document under Rule 12 may file affidavit that he is not
in possession of such document or may disclose in whose power the document lies
(M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapoor).
Discovery of document can be objected to under the Rule by filing an affidavit inter
alia on all or any one of the following grounds:
(i) that the party directed is not bound to produce those documents for
inspection which themselves are exclusive evidence of such party’s own
case or title;
(ii) that the party directed is not bound to disclose privileged confidential
communication (Sections 121 to 129 of Evidence Act);
(iii) that the party so directed is not bound to produce a document which is
injurious to public interest or security of the people or the nation (State of
Punjab v. S. S. Singh).2
For failure to comply direction see Rule 21 of this Order.
O 11, R, 14]
14. Production of documents.—
It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to Order
the production by any party thereto, upon oath, of such of the documents in his
possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall
think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such
manner as shall appear just.
India Foils Ltd. v. Vth Industrial Tribunal, MANU/WB/0057/1972: AIR 1972 Cal 308.
Rabindra Bal Niketan v. Sushila Srivastava, MANU/RH/0035/1988: AIR 1988 Raj 177.
State of Punjab v. S. S. Singh, MANU/SC/0006/1960: AIR 1961 SC 493.
M/s J. S. Constructions v. Damodar Raut, MANU/OR/0059/1987: AIR 1987 Ori 207.
Sasanagouda v. Dr. S.B. Amarkhed MANU/SC/0217/1992: AIR 1992 SC 1163, Paras
Drugs & Chemical Industries v. UCO Bank MANU/RH/0232/2000: AIR 2001 Raj 356.
6. Ram Hari De v. Niranjan Krishna Das and Co. (1946) 50 Cal WN 845, Ram Sewak Yadav
v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai MANU/SC/0177/1964: AIR 1964 SC 1249, India Foils Ltd v. 5th
Industrial Tribunal MANU/WB/0057/1972: AIR 1972 Cal 308, Indian Overseas Bank v.
Shreekrishna Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. MANU/MH/0364/1988: AIR 1988 Bom 343.
7. Chinnappan v. Ramchandran, MANU/TN/0249/1989: AIR 1989 Mad 314.
COMMENTS
‘Production of document’ is different from ‘discovery of document’ Before passing
the Order of production of document under Rule 14 the Court must be satisfied
that the party directed is actually in possession of the document (India Foils Ltd.
v. Vth Industrial Tribunal). 1 For that satisfaction, the party moving application
under Rule 14 must file an affidavit in support of such application asserting that
the opposite party is in possession of the particular document sought to be
produced (Rabindra Bal Niketan v. Sushila Srivastava).2 However, a party is not
bound to produce privileged document (State of Punjab v. S. S. Singh).3 Unlike in
the case of discovery of document, no prior leave is required for production of
document but application for the production cannot be allowed for harassing the
opposite party (M/s J. S. Constructions v. Damodar Raut) nor can the applicant
be permitted to cause delay in the hearing of the suit. The Court, therefore, is
clearly empowered and it shall be lawful for it to Order the production, by any party
to the suit, such documents in his possession or power relate to any matter in
question in the suit provided the Court shall think right that the production of the
documents are necessary to decide the matter in question. The Court also has
been given power to deal with the documents when produced in such manner as
shall appear just. Therefore, the power to Order production of documents is coupled
with discretion to examine the expediency, justness and the relevancy of the
documents to the matter in question (Sasanagouda v. Dr. S.B. Amarkhed; Paras
Drugs & Chemical Industries v. UCO Bank).
Under the normal scheme of production of documents at the instance of parties,
documents are produced and inspection is given after the pleadings are concluded.
Under Order 11 Rule 14, however, the Court may in its discretion at any stage direct
the documents relating to any matter in question in such suit to be produced. It is not
mandatory for the Court to direct production of such documents whenever asked for
(Ram Hari De v. Niranjan Krishna Das and Co.; Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[O 11, R. 15
Kidwai ; India Foils Ltd v. 5th Industrial Tribunal; Indian Overseas Bank v. Shreekrishna
Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd.).6
Where the application is moved with a motive to get the hearing adjourned, it must
be rejected. Non-compliance of direction of production of document neither permits
the Court to strike off the defence nor to dismiss the suit, instead only adverse
inference can be drawn if the document produced as to its contents (Chinnappan v.
Ramchandran).
15. Inspection of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavits.—
Every party to a suit shall be entitled at or before the settlement of issues to give
notice to any other party, in whose pleadings or affidavits reference is made to any
document or who has entered any document in any list annexed to his pleadings, or
produce such document for the inspection of the party giving such notice, or of his
pleader, and to permit him or them to take copies thereof; and any party not complying
with such notice shall not afterwards be at liberty to put any such document in
evidence on his behalf in such suit unless he shall satisfy the Court that such
document relates only to his own title, he being a Defendant to the suit, or that he
had some other cause or excuse which the Court shall deem sufficient for not
complying with such notice, in which case the Court may allow the same to be put
in evidence on such terms as to costs and otherwise as the Court shall think fit.
ANNOTATIONS
Amendment
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act 1999 substituted “at or before the
settlement of issues” for the text “at any
time”.
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act 1976 inserted the text “or who has
entered any document in any list annexed
to his pleadings” after the text “...reference
is made to any” in Rule 15 to order 9.
Effective Date of Amendment
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act 1999 w.e.f. 01.07.2002
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act 1976 w.e.f. 01.02.1976
Prior to Amendment
Prior to 1999 Amendment Rule 15 use to
read as under:
15. Inspection of documents referred
to in pleadings or affidavits.— Every
party to a suit shall be entitled at
any time to give notice to any other
party, in whose pleadings or affidavits
reference is made to any document
or produce such document for the
inspection of the party giving such
notice, or of his pleader, and to permit
him or them to take copies thereof ;
and any party not complying with such
notice shall not afterwards be at liberty
to put any such document in evidence
on his behalf in such suit unless he
shall satisfy the Court that such
document relates only to his own title,
he being a defendant to the suit, or
that he had some other cause or
excuse which the Court shall deem
sufficient for not complying with such
notice, in which case the Court may
allow the same to be put in evidence
on such terms as to costs and otherwise
as the Court shall think fit.
O 11, R, 15]
Case Cited
1. N. Sivamani and N. Sudha v. Thilagavathy and K. Dhanasekaran MANU/TN/0891/2005.
2. Indian Overseas Bank v. Shreekrishna Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. MANU/MH/0364/1988:
AIR 1988 Bom 343.
3. Phool Chand Garg v. Gopal Das Agrawal, MANU/MP/0027/1990: AIR 1990 MP 135.
4. Ram Sewak v. H.K. Kidwai, MANU/SC/0177/1964: AIR 1964 SC 1249.
5. Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India MANU/SC/0450/2005:
AIR 2005 SC 3353.
6. The Management of the Agri Horticultural Society, Madras v. The Workmen of Agri
Horticultural Society MANU/TN/0171/1966: AIR 1966 Mad 375.
7. Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai MANU/SC/0177/1964: AIR 1964
SC 1249.
COMMENTS
A Defendant is entitled to inspect the documents referred to in the plaint or in the
list of documents submitted by the Plaintiff. Similarly, a Plaintiff has also right to
inspect the document referred to by the Defendant in the written statement or in
the list of his documents. Under Order XI, Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure, a
party shall be entitled to give notice to any other party to produce such document
which has been entered in any document list annexed to the pleadings or reference
is made to any such document (N. Sivamani and N. Sudha v. Thilagavathy and
K. Dhanasekaran).1 Under Order 11 Rule 15, however, a party to a suit may obtain
production and inspection of documents referred to in the pleadings or affidavits
of the other side before the pleadings are complete. Apart from this provision, a
party cannot normally ask for production for inspection of documents at a stage
prior to the filing of affidavits of documents (Indian Overseas Bank v. Shreekrishna
Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd.).
As such a party may call for the production of such documents of opposite party if
not already filed (Phool Chand Garg v. Gopal Das Agrawal).Same right can be
exercised by the parties regarding documents referred to in affidavits of opposite
party but not filed (Ram Sewak v. H.K. Kidwai).4 The stipulation in Rule 15 of Order
XI confining the inspection of documents ‘at or before the settlement of issues’
instead of ‘at any time’ is also nothing but directory. It does not mean that the
inspection cannot be allowed after the settlement of issues (Salem Advocate Bar
Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India).5
There seems to be a distinction between Rule 18(1) of Order XI on the one hand,
and Rules 15 and 18 on the other. Rule 18(1) pre-supposes an affidavit or the
pleadings of a party referring to or relying on certain documents, in which event
the other party can seek an inspection of those documents. But where one party
seeks inspection of documents not referred to in the pleadings or affidavit of the
other, neither Rule 15 nor 18(1) appears to have any application (The Management
of the Agri Horticultural Society, Madras v. The Workmen of Agri Horticultural
Society).
The power which the Civil Court may exercise in the trial of suits is confined to
the narrow limits of Order. 11, Code of Civil Procedure. Inspection of documents
under Order. 11, Code of Civil Procedure may be ordered under Rule 15, of
documents which are referred to in the pleadings or particulars as disclosed in the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[O 11, R. 18
affidavit of documents of the other party, and under Rule 18(2) of other documents
in the possession or power of the other party (Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil
Kidwai).
The rule also applies to Election petitions. For form of notice to produce document
under the rule see next Rule 16 of this Order.
16. Notice to produce.—
Notice to any party to produce any documents referred to in his pleading or affidavits
shall be in Form No. 7, Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may
require.
COMMENTS
Form No. 7 prescribed in Appendix ‘C’ is the model form and the notice may be varied
according to the circumstances of the case.
17. Time for inspection when notice given.—
The party to whom such notice is given shall, within 10 days from the receipt of
such notice, deliver to the party giving the same a notice stating a time within three
days from the delivery thereof at which the documents, or such of them as he does
not object to produce, may be inspected at the office of his pleader, or in the case
of bankers’ books or other books of account or books in constant use for the
purposes of any trade or business, at their usual place of custody, and stating which
(if any) of the documents he objects to produce, and on what ground. Such notice
shall be in Form No. 8 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may
require.
Case Cited
1. Dilip Singh v. Dhaniram, MANU/MH/0194/1976: AIR 1976 Bom 38.
COMMENTS
When the party directed to produce the document fails to produce it, the party who
sought the production is entitled to lead secondary evidence to prove in this regard
in the absence of original document (Dilip Singh v. Dhaniram).1
18. Order for inspection.—
(1) Where the party served with notice under Rule 15 omits to give such
notice of a time for inspection or objects to give inspection, or offers
inspection elsewhere than at the office of his pleader, the Court may, on
the application of the party desiring it, make an Order for inspection in
such place and in such manner as it may think fit:
O 11, R, 18]
Provided that the Order shall not be made when and so far as the Court
shall be of opinion that, it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the
suit or for saving costs.
(2) Any application to inspect documents, except such as are referred to in
the pleadings, particulars or affidavits of the party against whom the
application is made or disclosed in his affidavit of documents, shall be
founded upon an affidavit showing of what documents inspection is sought,
that the party applying is entitled to inspect them, and that they are in the
possession or power of the other party. The Court shall not make such
Order for inspection of such documents when and so far as the Court shall
be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit
or for saving costs.
Case Cited
1. Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. Their Workmen MANU/TN/0480/
1954: 1955 (1) Mad LJ 27.
2. Andhra Bank v. Narendra, AIR 1956 AP 115.
3. A. H. Society v. Workmen, MANU/TN/0171/1966: AIR 1966 Mad 375.
4. Firm Balmukund Puran Mall v. Firm, Fateh Chand Dharamchand MANU/BH/0127/1968:
AIR 1968 Pat 474.
COMMENTS
Rule 18(2) of Order XI Code of Civil Procedure provides for documents other than
those referred to in Rule 15, the inspection of which a Court is empowered to Order.
The conditions to be satisfied before the power under Section 18(2) of Order XI Code
of Civil Procedure can be exercised are- (1) that there should be an affidavit to show
the documents inspection of which is sought; (2) the party who applied for the
inspection of the documents should establish that he is entitled to inspect and (3) the
documents the inspection of which is sought must be in the possession of the party
against whom the Order of inspection is sought. Overriding all these is the further
requirement that the Court should be of opinion that the document inspection of which
is sought is necessary either for disposing of fairly the suit or for saving costs (Mettur
Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. Their Workmen).1
Ordinarily no inspection of document should be allowed under Sub-rule (2) before filing
of written statement (Andhra Bank v. Narendra).2 Also party applying for inspection of the
document not mentioned in pleadings, must file an affidavit in support of the application.
The Court must consider whether the document sought to be inspected is relevant or not
(A. H. Society v. Workmen).3 If the document sought to be inspected is irrelevant or the
real purpose of the application for inspection appears to be to delay the proceedings of
the suit the Court must reject the application and proceed with the suit. It is clear that
if the party wants an inspection of the document under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of Order
11 of the Code, the document which has been referred to in the pleading or affidavit, he
can inspect only the particular entry or entries referred to in the pleading and not other
portions of the account books, which are not documents which can be said to have been
referred to in the pleading (Firm Balmukund Puran Mall v. Firm, Fateh Chand Dharamchand).4
For consequences of non-compliance of Inspection see Rule 21 of this Order.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[O 11, R. 19
19. Verified copies.—
(1) Where inspection of any business books is applied for, the Court may, if
it thinks fit, instead of Ordering inspection of the original books, Order a
copy of any entries therein, to be furnished and verified by the affidavit of
some person who has examined the copy with the original entries, and
such affidavit shall state whether or not there are in the original book any
and what erasures, interlineations or alterations :
Provided that, notwithstanding that such copy has been supplied, the
Court may Order inspection of the book from which the copy was made.
(2) Where on an application for an Order for inspection privilege is claimed for
any document, it shall be lawful for the Court to inspect the document for
the purpose of deciding as to the validity of the claim of privilege unless
the document relates to matters of State.
(3) The Court may, on the application of any party to a suit at any time, and
whether an affidavit of documents shall or shall not have already been
Ordered or made, make an Order requiring any other party to state by
affidavit whether any one or more specific documents, to be specified in
the application, is or are, or has to have at any time been, in his possession
or power; and, if not then in his possession, when he parted with the same
and what has become thereof. Such application shall be made on an
affidavit stating that in the belief of the deponent the party against whom
the application is made has, or has at some time had, in his possession
or power the document or documents specified in the application, and that
they relate to the matters in question in the suit, or to some of them.
ANNOTATIONS
Amendments Effective date of Amendment
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act 1976 inserted the words ‘unless the Act, 1976 w.e.f. 01.02.1977
document relates to matters of State’ at
the end of Rule 19 (2).
Case Cited
1. The State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh MANU/SC/0006/1960: AIR 1961 SC 493.
2. The State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdeo Singh MANU/SC/0006/1960: AIR 1961 SC 493.
COMMENTS
Where the State is a party to the suit and an application for inspection of documents
is made against it by its opponent, and a claim for privilege is put forward by the
State, the Court is entitled under Order 11, Rule 19, Sub-section (2), to inspect the
documents for the purpose of deciding as to the validity of the claim of privilege (The
State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh).1
Words “unless the document relates to matters State” are added in Sub-rule (2) by
the Act No. 104 of 1976, w.e.f. 1st February, 1977, as such now if the privilege is
O 11, R, 21]
claimed in respect of any document under Section 123 of Evidence Act, the Court
cannot inspect the same. Therefore, the principle of law laid down in Sukhvir Singh
Sodhi’s case (The State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh)2 stands accordingly
modified.
20. Premature discovery.—
Where the party from whom discovery of any kind or inspection is sought objects to
the same, or any part thereof, the Court may, if satisfied that the right to the
discovery or inspection sought depends on the determination of any issue or question
in dispute in the suit, or that for any other reason it is desirable that any issue or
question in dispute in the suit should be determined before deciding upon the right
to the discovery or inspection, Order that such issue or question be determined first,
and reserve the question as to the discovery or inspection.
Case Cited
1. Union of India v. Laxmi Narayana, AIR 1953 Nag 281.
2. Bhagya Lakshmi v. Srinivasa, MANU/TN/0146/1960: AIR 1960 Mad 510.
COMMENTS
Postponement of discovery and inspection until the determination of an issue or
question, is discretionary and not obligatory on Court (Union of India v. Laxmi Narayana).1
Where the fate of the suit depends on finding of some preliminary issue, the Court
would not Order inspection of a document relevant to other issues before the decision
on such preliminary issue (Bhagya Lakshmi v. Srinivasa).2
21. Non-compliance with Order for discovery.—
(1) Where any party fails to comply with any Order to answer interrogatories,
or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a Plaintiff, be liable
to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a Defendant,
to have his defence, if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same
position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking
discovery or inspection may apply to the Court for an Order to that effect,
and [an Order may be made on such application accordingly, after notice
to the parties and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being
heard.
(2) Where an Order is made under Sub-rule (1) dismissing any suit, the
Plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause
of action.
ANNOTATIONS
Amendment
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act 1976 renumbered Order 11 Rule 21
as Sub-rule (1). It further substituted the
text “an order may be made on such
application accordingly, after notice to the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
parties and after giving them a reasonable
opportunity of being heard” for the text
“an order may be made accordingly”. The
Amendment Act further inserted Sub-rule 2
to Rule 21 of Order 11.
Effective date of Amendment
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 1976 w.e.f. 01.02.1977
Prior to Amendment
Prior to 1976 Amendment Rule 21 of
Order 11 use to read as under:
[O 11, R. 21
comply with any order to answer
interrogatories, or for discovery or
inspection of documents, he shall, if
a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit
dismissed for want of prosecution, and,
if a defendant, to have his defence, if
any, struck out, and to be placed in
the same position as if he had not
defended, and the party interrogating
or seeking discovery or inspection may
apply to the Court for an order to that
effect, and an order may be made
accordingly.
21. Non-compliance with order for
discovery.— Where any party fails to
Case Cited
1. M/s. Gur Prasad Shyam Babu v. State Bank of India MANU/UP/0024/1994: AIR 1994 All 151.
2. Ranipet C. & E. Ltd. v. Swastic Stainless Steel, MANU/WB/0013/1986: AIR 1986 Cal 76;
Namita Dhar v. Dr. Amalendu Sen, MANU/WB/0047/1977: AIR 1977 Cal 187;
Chinnappan v. Ramachandran MANU/TN/0249/1989: AIR 1989 Mad 314.
3. Babbar Sewing Machine Co. v. Trilok, MANU/SC/0015/1978: AIR 1978 SC 1436.
4. J.D. Dhanda v. Des Raj Nayyar MANU/PH/0055/1976: AIR 1976 P&H 339.
5. Modula India v. K. S. Deo, MANU/SC/0283/1988: AIR 1989 SC 162.
COMMENTS
From the provisions of the Rule 21 it is clear that the Court can exercise the power
under the aforesaid rule in three circumstances i.e. when a party fails to comply (a)
with any Order to answer interrogatories; (b) with any Order for discovery of documents;
and (c) with any Order for inspection of documents (M/s. Gur Prasad Shyam Babu
v. State Bank of India).1
Where no application is made by a party to strike off the defence or dismiss the suit
as the case may be for non-compliance of Order of discovery, interrogation or inspection,
the Court should not pass Orders to that effect on its own motion (Ranipet C. & E.
Ltd. v. Swastic Stainless Steel; Namita Dhar v. Dr. Amalendu Sen; Chinnappan v.
Ramachandran).2 Even if an application is moved for non-compliance of Orders
passed under Rules 11, 12 or 18 of this Order, the Court should not dismiss the suit
or strike off the defence unless there is wilful disregard of Court’s Order (Babbar
Sewing Machine Co. v. Trilok),3 instead adverse inference can always be drawn against
the party failing to comply with the Orders. The language of Order XI, Rule 21 of the
Code is plain and clear. It states that an Order striking out the defence of a Defendant,
to whom interrogatories have been delivered with the leave of the Court, can be
passed only where the Defendant fails to comply with “any Order to answer” the
interrogatories. The mere grant of leave to deliver interrogatories does not amount to
such an “Order” (J.D. Dhanda v. Des Raj Nayyar).4
Where the defence is struck off under this rule, the Defendant should be permitted
to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the Plaintiff and argue that suit cannot
O 11, R, 23]
be decreed (Modula India v. K. S. Deo).5 A High Court being Court of Record under
the Constitution of India can draw proceedings for contempt of Court also for disobedience
of its Orders.
An Order passed under this Rule 21 is appealable under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (f) of the
Code.
22. Using answers to interrogatories at trial.—
Any party may, at the trial of a suit, use in evidence any one or more of the answers
or any part of an answer of the opposite party to interrogatories without putting in the
others or the whole of such answer :
Provided always that in such case the Court may look at the whole of the
answers, and if it shall be of opinion that any others of them are so connected
with those put in that the last mentioned answers ought not to be used without
them, it may direct them to be put in.
COMMENTS
The answers to interrogatories in the form of affidavits are not evidence. Therefore,
if a party wishing to use the answers to interrogatories in evidence, it must put it in
evidence in the ordinary way by asking questions to the witnesses in this regard. The
answers cannot be used by breaking it up but must be read as a whole.
23. Order to apply to minors.—
This Order shall apply to minor Plaintiffs and Defendants, and to the next friends and
guardians for the suit of persons under disability.
ANNOTATIONS
High Court Amendment
Rules 24-26
Karnataka
After Rule 23, insert the following rules:
’24. If where inspection has been
ordered out of court or is to be given
out of court is found that a
satisfactory inspection cannot be
obtained, or if it is shown that the
documents are being or are likely to
be tampered with, an application may
be made to court for an order for
the deposit and inspection of the
documents in court. Such application
shall be supported by affidavit. Notice
of such application shall be given
to the party affected thereby and
orders passed only after hearing both
sides, if they appear on the date
fixed for hearing in the notice, or on
any other date to which the hearing
of the same may be adjourned
thereafter.
25. A defendant upon whom summons
to appear and answer the plaint has
been served, shall on entering
appearance before filing his written
statement be entitled along with his
pleader, if any, to inspect all documents
[O 12, R. 2
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
produced with the plaint and lying in
the custody of the court.
26. A plaintiff as well as every
defendant on whom summons has
been served and who has entered
appearance shall be entitled along with
his pleader, if any, to inspect all
documents produced into court by any
party to the suit.’
Effective date
Amendment
of
High
Court
Karnataka: 30.03.1967
Order XII
Admission
1. Notice of admission of case.—
Any party to a suit may give notice, by his pleading, or otherwise in writing, that he
admits the truth of the whole or any part of the case of any other party.
COMMENTS
Admissions may be oral or in writing. The admission under Rule 1 of Order XII must
be in writing as notice under the Code means notice in writing (Section 142). Admissions
made in pleadings need not be proved in view of Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code and
Section 58 of the Evidence Act. However, admissions made by mistake can be
proved to be mistaken one. Also, admission made must be read in its entirety. 1 For
Judgment on admissions see Rule 6 of this Order.
2. Notice to admit documents.—
Either party may call upon the other party to admit, within seven days from the date
of service of the notice any document saving all just exceptions; and in case of
refusal or neglect to admit, after such notice, the costs of proving any such document
shall be paid by the party so neglecting or refusing, whatever the result of the suit
may be, unless the Court otherwise directs; and no costs of proving any document
shall be allowed unless such notice is given, except where the omission to give the
notice is, in the opinion of the Court, a saving of expense.
ANNOTATIONS
Amendments Effective date of Amendments
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 1999 substituted the provision of ‘fifteen Act 1999 w.e.f. 01.07.2002
days’ with ‘seven days’ in Rule 2 of Order 12.
Earlier the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1976 had substituted
the text “to admit any document” with “to
admit, within fifteen days” in Rule 2 to
Order 12
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act 1976 w.e.f. 01.02.1977
Prior to Amendment
Prior to the 1976 Amendment, Rule 2 of
Order 12 use to read as under:
No comments:
Post a Comment