It is to be noted that Order 11 Rule 16 of CPC enjoins that 'notice to any party to produce any documents refers in his pleadings or affidavits shall be in Form No.7 in Appendix C with such variations as circumstances may require'. Order 11 Rule 17 refers to the time for inspection when the notice has been given. Order 11 Rule 18 of CPC speaks of order for inspection. It cannot be gain said that no order for inspection can be made under Order 11 Rule 18 of CPC unless notice has been served under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents informs this Court that no application has been filed before the trial Court under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC. It is relevant to point out that before ordering discovery or inspection of documents, the Court is required to apply its mind so as to see whether straightaway an order can be passed despite the objections raised by the other side from whom the discovery has been sought for. No wonder, the Court has also to satisfy itself that the documents are in existence and an order passed without consideration,all these vital facts are not sustainable in the eye of law in the considered opinion of this Court.
5. Inasmuch as the trial Court has not made any endeavour to satisfy itself whether the documents mentioned in the I.A.NO.1134 of 2008 are in existence or not,suffice it for this Court to come to the conclusion that the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in the eye of law because of non adherence to Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC and in that view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed by this Court in the interest of justice.
Madras High Court
R.Chandra Sekar vs T.G.Sargunam on 11 December, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.12.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.(P.D) No.4078 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
The revision petitioners/respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs have filed this present civil revision petition as against the order dated 14.3.2008 in I.A.No.1134 of 2008 in O.S.No.2218 of 2007 passed by the learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in allowing the application filed by the 1st respondent/petitioner/1st defendant under Order 11 Rule 16 of CPC praying permission of the Court in directing the revision petitioners/respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs to produce the necessary documents for perusal and enquiry as mentioned in the affidavit in I.A.No.1134 of 2008.
2.The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.1134 of 2008 in O.S.No.2218 of 2007 has inter alia observed that' both petitioners and respondents claim title over the property. Therefore, the same can be considered only in trial if the documentary proof of lineage is filed' and resultantly allowed the application without costs.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/respondents 1 to 4 /plaintiffs contends that the order passed by the trial Court in allowing I.A.No.1134 of 2008 is against law and erroneous one and that the trial Court has not taken note of the fact that only in the event of noncompliance of the notice, the application under Order 11 Rule 16 of CPC is maintainable and that the issuance of notice which is the condition precedent to the application filed under Order 11 Rule 16 of CPC has not been adhered to by the respondents/defendants and further that as per Order 11 Rule 18 of CPC, the trial Court can pass the impugned order at the appropriate stage and moreover the document Nos. 2 and 3 viz., the settlement deed and the sale deed are to be documents and the same can be obtained by applying for certified copies from the authorities concerned and that the respondents/defendants have completely given a go by to the procedure as contemplated under Order 11 Rules 15 to 18 of CPC and therefore prays for allowing the revision petition in the interest of justice.
4. It is to be noted that Order 11 Rule 16 of CPC enjoins that 'notice to any party to produce any documents refers in his pleadings or affidavits shall be in Form No.7 in Appendix C with such variations as circumstances may require'. Order 11 Rule 17 refers to the time for inspection when the notice has been given. Order 11 Rule 18 of CPC speaks of order for inspection. It cannot be gain said that no order for inspection can be made under Order 11 Rule 18 of CPC unless notice has been served under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents informs this Court that no application has been filed before the trial Court under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC. It is relevant to point out that before ordering discovery or inspection of documents, the Court is required to apply its mind so as to see whether straightaway an order can be passed despite the objections raised by the other side from whom the discovery has been sought for. No wonder, the Court has also to satisfy itself that the documents are in existence and an order passed without consideration,all these vital facts are not sustainable in the eye of law in the considered opinion of this Court.
5. Inasmuch as the trial Court has not made any endeavour to satisfy itself whether the documents mentioned in the I.A.NO.1134 of 2008 are in existence or not,suffice it for this Court to come to the conclusion that the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in the eye of law because of non adherence to Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC and in that view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed by this Court in the interest of justice.
6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1134 of 2008 in O.S.No.2218 of 2007 is hereby set aside for the reasons assigned in this revision. It is open to the respondents to file necessary application before the trial Court as per the relevant provisions of Civil Procedure Code and to seek appropriate remedy in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.
sg To the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
No comments:
Post a Comment