Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ms. Monica Bibli Sood vs Dr. Karan J. Kumar And Ors. on 27 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)139PLR795
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The defendant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 15.11.2003 whereby defendant No. 1 was directed to produce document i.e. document granting legal sanction from the Government of India to hold property in India.
2. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for declaration challenging the gift deeds dated 26.3.1964 and 28.4.1966 in favour of defendant No. 1 by their father Dr. Amar Nath Sood, the suit has been filed on 21.7.1997, when the case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff, an application was filed by him to the effect that defendant No. 1 in his written statement dated 17.7.1998 has mentioned that after migrating to New Zealand he relinquished Indian Citizenship and is having a valid passport from Government of New Zealand. It has further been stated that he is holding the property i.e. Bungalow No. 1098, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh in India after getting due legal sanction from the Government of India under the relevant Rules and Regulations.
3. Plaintiff has sought a direction 'directed defendant No. 1 to produce said sanction, which has been allowed by the learned Trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court has vehemently argued that the order passed is wholly unjustified and the legal sanction is wholly immaterial for the purpose of controversy in the suit. In any case, the plaintiff cannot seek production of such document at this stage.
5. On the other hand it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 was not in India on the date of execution of the gift and thus, he could not accept the gift which is a necessary pre condition thus, such legal sanction would be necessary for determination of the controversy between the parties.
6. The primary object of the provisions of Order 11 Rules 12 to 20 is to save costs and to assist Courts in the administration of justice. The court is required to apply its mind carefully before making an order granting discovery and inspection. The Court is not to make such order as a matter of routine and as one of no serious consequences. The discretion must be exercised judicially to further the primary object of the provisions and care must be taken that they are not used with an ulterior motive. It was so held by this Court in Lajpat Rai v. Tej Bhan and Ors., A.I.R. 1957 Punjab 14 as follows:
"3. Therefore, it is clear that the intention of the legislature in enacting these provisions of law to give "discovery or inspection of certain documents if such an order is considered necessary in the interests of fair disposal of the suit or to reduce litigation expenses. The primary object of these provisions is to save costs and to assist Courts in the administration of justice. It necessarily follows that the Court concerned must judicially exercise its discretion keeping the object of these provisions of law in view.
An order granting discovery and inspection may in some cases result in serious prejudice and injury to the party that has to comply with it and, therefore, it is necessary that the Court should apply its mind carefully before making the order. It is not the intention of the legislature that such an order should be made as a matter of routine and as one of no serious consequences.
The Courts, when moved under these provisions of law, must first decide whether the documents of which discovery or inspection is sought relate to any question in the suit and then decide if it is necessary to grant the application at that stage of the suit in the interests of its fair disposal or to save litigation expenses.
The discretion vested in courts must be exercised judicially to further the primary object of these provisions and care must be taken that they are not used with an ulterior motive. Obviously, the decision rests on the circumstances of each case and it is not possible to lay any hard and fast rule in this matter."
7. Keeping in view the said principle of law it need to be examined whether the document in question relate to any question in the suit and whether production of such document would be in furtherance of fair disposal of the suit or to save litigation expenses. Neither in the application nor in the order, there is any indication that such document would be relevant to any of the question in the suit. The argument that such document would be relevant to prove the acceptance of gift was not raised before the trial Court. In fact, it appears that the plaintiff is making fishing inquiries to find out the details to build up his case. The plaintiff has to prove that the gift executed by the father of the parties is result of fraud exercising undue influence or otherwise illegal null and void. In the absence of any fact that such document would be relevant for determination of any controversy in the present suit, I am unable to hold that the learned trial Court was within its jurisdiction to pass an order directing the defendant to produce such document.
8. The respondent has referred to Shri L.M. Sethi v. Shri R.P. Kapur, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2379, Punny Kalu and Anr. v. Shankar Kalu, A.I.R. 1961 Madhya Pradesh 348, India Foils Ltd. v. The 5th Industrial Tribunal, East Bengal and Ors., A.I.R. 1972 Calcutta 308 and Ravindra Bal Niketan Samiti, Sikar and Ors. v. Smt. Sushila Shrivastava and Anr., A.I.R. 1988 Rajasthan 177 to contend that such document is necessary for proper determination of the controversy and the learned trial Court was justified in passing the order directing the defendant to produce such document.
9. In fact, in India Foils Ltd.'s case (supra) the Court found that the document must relate to matter in question in the proceeding pending before the Court. The Court held to the following effect:
"The second condition is also very relevant and important, namely, that the documents must relate to the matter in question in the proceeding pending before the Court. It is not open to a party to come to Court and ask for an order for production of numerous documents without satisfying the Court that the documents are relevant and that on the records there is ample evidence that the documents are in the possession or power of the party against whom the order was to be made."
10. The other judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent do not deal with the question arising in the present revision petition and consequently are clearly distinguishable.
11. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is clearly suffers from patent illegally and material irregularity causing substantial injustice to the petitioner. Thus, the said order is set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff for production of document is dismissed.
Resultantly, the revision petition stands allowed.