I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Mukherjee and perused the order impugned. Admittedly those documents the production of which were sought for by the petitioner, were referred and relied upon by contesting defendant no.4 in his written statement. Admittedly, ld. trial court rejected said application praying for production of documents only on the ground that it was filed belated only after closure of evidence. Admittedly, the court has power and jurisdiction to make an order for production of documents at any time during pendency of the suit subject to fulfilling of condition namely that the documents were in possession of the party against whom the order is sought to be made and that those documents related to the matter in question in suit. In view of said settled proposition of law, I find that the ld. trial court failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested to him in law by passing the order impugned. Accordingly, this revisional application is hereby allowed exparte by setting aside the order impugned dated 3rd February, 2010 passed in T.S. No.27 of 1999.
Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Print Page
Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
In Air 1972 Calcutta 308 (India ... vs The 5Th Industrial Tribunal on 13 November, 2013
Mr. Mukherjee, ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice was duly served upon the O.P. defendant no.1 to 4 and that an affidavit of service will be filed during the course of this day. However, on call, none appears for O.P. defendants.
It appears that present petitioner filed one suit being T.S. No.27/1999 against the present O.P.s for declaration, injunction and other consequential reliefs. After closure of evidence the petitioner plaintiff filed an application in the trial court praying for directing O.P. defendant no.4 to produce certain documents mentioned therein which were referred and relied by said defendant no.4 in his written statement. Learned trial court rejected said application on the ground that as evidence was closed the stage of producing documents was already over and hence said petition was liable to be rejected.
Mr. Mukherjee submits that said application praying for issuing direction upon defendant no.4 for production of documents was filed under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC. According to him, the court has ample power to make an order for production of said documents at any stage of the suit if the court is satisfied that those documents were in possession of the party alleged and that those documents relate to the matter in question to the court. According to him, ld. trial court without considering these aspects mechanically rejected said application only on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage after closure of evidence of both sides. In support of his contention, he has referred case law reported in AIR 1972 Calcutta 308 (India Foils Ltd. Vs. The 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & Ors.) and 1976 CWN 404 (India Foils Ltd. Vs. The 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & Ors.).
I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Mukherjee and perused the order impugned. Admittedly those documents the production of which were sought for by the petitioner, were referred and relied upon by contesting defendant no.4 in his written statement. Admittedly, ld. trial court rejected said application praying for production of documents only on the ground that it was filed belated only after closure of evidence. Admittedly, the court has power and jurisdiction to make an order for production of documents at any time during pendency of the suit subject to fulfilling of condition namely that the documents were in possession of the party against whom the order is sought to be made and that those documents related to the matter in question in suit. In view of said settled proposition of law, I find that the ld. trial court failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested to him in law by passing the order impugned. Accordingly, this revisional application is hereby allowed exparte by setting aside the order impugned dated 3rd February, 2010 passed in T.S. No.27 of 1999. Learned trial court is hereby directed to hear the application for production of documents afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to all concerned within four weeks from the date of communication of the order and then to pass a reasoned order as per observations made above.
No order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment