A perusal of above quoted rule shows that it deals with production of documents and there is hardly any room to refuse such a request. The only exception which could be is with regard to privilege documents under Sections 122, 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act, 1872. However, the rule is confined to production of only those documents which relate to any fact in issue or relevant facts. The same is entirely different than Rule 12 which is confined to discovery of documents. Under Rule 14, all the documents listed in the application are required to be produced as long as they are found to be relevant to any matter in question raised in the suit. However, the position is different in so far as discovery of documents is concerned which is dealt with by Rule 12 of Order XI of the Code. According to Rule 12, the Court may issue direction to any party to the suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power. If such discovery is found to be unnecessary, then such a prayer can always be declined on the ground that it is not necessary for disposing of the suit.
Print Page
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sharvan Kumar vs Sumeet Kumar Garg on 12 July, 2002
Bench: M Kumar
1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.3.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chandigarh allowing the application of the plaintiff-respondent directing the defendant-petitioner to produce the original registration certificate of scooter make Priya No. HYQ-5986, Car No. HR-07-5986 and also cash book, ledger book and other accounts relating to the period we.f. 28.7.1998 to 21.6.1999. The defendant-petitioner has filed this revision petition invoking the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code').
2. In order to put the whole controversy in its proper perspective and to focus on the legal issues involved, necessary facts may first be noticed. Plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No. 139 dated 2.12,1999 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 21,60,000/-. The suit has been filed under Order XXXVII of the Code on the basis of family settlements dated 2.8.1998 and 21-23.8.1999 and cheque No. 786212 dated 31.7.1999. Defendant-petitioner was granted leave to contest on 5.1.2000 by the Civil Judge on the condition of furnishing of indemnity bonds to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs with one surety. The case of the plaintiff-respondent set up in the plaint is that family settlement has been arrived at between the parties who are kith and kin and who had joint business. Plaintiff-respondent filed an application on 4.3.2002 seeking direction to the defendant-petitioner for production of various documents and record after the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant-petitioner. The Civil Judge allowed the application on the ground that various documents and record are relevant for proper adjudication of the issues. The operative part of the order recorded by the Civil Judge on 30.3.2002 reads as under:-
"After considering the rival submissions made by Ld. counsel for both the parties I find that the plaintiff has brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 21,60,000/- with interest on the basis of some agreement executed between the parties on Rs. 21,60,000/- with interest on the basis of some agreement executed between the parties on 21.06.99 vide which all the properties including petrol pump, kerosene oil Pump, landed property, residential property and vehicles were distributed amongst the parties so the documents pertaining to the period prior to the execution of agreement are certainly relevant for the purpose of cross examining the defendant and will help in the proper adjudication of the case. Accordingly, the cash book, ledger book and account books are also relevant for the proper adjudication of the case which certainly pertain to the period prior to execution of agreement. Hence the application filed by the plaintiff is allowed and the documents are allowed to be produced by the defendant at the time of examination of the witness of defendant."
3. Mr. Raman Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioner has argued that by allowing the application, the Civil Judge has opened up a pandora's box for fishing enquiry which may lead to disastrous results for the defendant-petitioner because if any other irregularity is found in the accounts, the defendant-petitioner would be out to unnecessary harassment. He has argued that in such like situation, the Civil Judge could not have directed the production of account books and other documents. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Punj Star Industries (P) Ltd. v. Atna Investment Pvt. Ltd. 2001(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 628 and argued that when in that case such an application was filed, it was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff-company was trying to make a fishing and roving enquiry. Another submission made by the learned counsel is that the documents which have been ordered to be produced by the Civil Judge do not relate to any matter in question within the meaning of Order XI Rule 14 of the Code. Therefore, he has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order.
4. Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, has taken the stand that once the family settlement in pursuance to agreement dated 2.8.1998 and 21/23.6.1999 has been given effect to by issuing cheque and transferring the vehicles in accordance with the terms thereof, then it cannot be doubted that family settlement has not taken place. He has pointed out that there is no dispute with regard to execution of the family settlement between the parties. According to the learned counsel, the Civil Judge has not ordered production of whole accounts or all documents but has ordered only the accounts for the relevant period i.e. 28.7.1998 to 23.6.1999. Therefore, there is no scope for a roving enquiry as has been suggested in the judgment of Delhi High Court in Punj Star Industries's case (supra). Therefore, he has prayed that the revision petition does not deserve to be accepted.
5. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel. It is appropriate to make a reference of the provisions of Order XI Rule 14 of the Code which deals with the production of documents and the same reads as under:-
ORDER XI DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION 1 to 13. xx xx xx xx
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.
A perusal of above quoted rule shows that it deals with production of documents and there is hardly any room to refuse such a request. The only exception which could be is with regard to privilege documents under Sections 122, 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act, 1872. However, the rule is confined to production of only those documents which relate to any fact in issue or relevant facts. The same is entirely different than Rule 12 which is confined to discovery of documents. Under Rule 14, all the documents listed in the application are required to be produced as long as they are found to be relevant to any matter in question raised in the suit. However, the position is different in so far as discovery of documents is concerned which is dealt with by Rule 12 of Order XI of the Code. According to Rule 12, the Court may issue direction to any party to the suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power. If such discovery is found to be unnecessary, then such a prayer can always be declined on the ground that it is not necessary for disposing of the suit.
6. If the principles laid down in Order XI Rules 12 and 14 of the Code are applied to the facts of the present case, it becomes clear that the recovery suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is based on family settlement dated 2.8.1998 and 21/23.6.1999 and cheque No. 786212 dated 31.7.1999. Therefore, it does not appear to me that the production of ledger, cash book alongwith other documents could be said to be irrelevant because there is a specific issue as to whether defendant-petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 3 lacs and as to whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 20 lacs and interest thereon. Therefore, it cannot be claimed on the basis of Order XI Rule 14 of the Code that the documents directed to be produced are not relevant to the issues involved in the suit.
7. The other argument raised by Mr. Mahajan that it would amount to a roving enquiry also does not require any serious consideration in view of the fact that the direction issued by the Civil Judge is confined only the accounts relating to the period 28.7.1998 to 21/23.6.1999. Therefore, the judgment in Punj Star Industries's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. The revision petition is thus devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
8. for the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment