Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd vs Ram Bagh Palace Hotel Pvt Ltd on 29 January, 2013
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
In the High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench Jaipur S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4210/2011 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited-Petitioner Versus Ram Bagh Palace Hotel Private Ltd. & Anr.-Respondents with S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2045/2012 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited-Appellant Versus Ram Bagh Palace Hotel Private Ltd.-Respondent Date of Judgment ::29.01.2013 Mr. S. Kasliwal Senior Advocate with Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal, for petitioner/appellant. Mr. G.K. Garg Senior Advocate with Mr. Yash Sharma, for respondents.
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi Reportable:-
1. This common judgment is being passed for disposing of the Civil Writ Petition No.4210/2011 as well as the Civil Misc. Appeal No.2045/2012, which are inter-connected with each other and arises out of the proceedings in the same suit.
2. The S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4210/2011 has been filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dated 01.02.2011 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court) in Civil Suit No.19/2007 (207/2002), whereby the trial court has allowed the application of the respondent No.1-plaintiff filed under Order XI Rule 12, 14 & 15 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. The C.M.A. No.2045/2012 has been filed by the same appellant-defendant challenging the order dated 03.03.2012 passed by the trial court in the said suit, whereby the trial court has allowed the application of the respondent No.1-plaintiff for striking out the defence of the appellant-defendant under Order XI Rule 21 read with Section 151 of C.P.C.
3. The chronology of events necessary for the purpose of deciding these two matters is that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent, and the said suit is pending before the trial court. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XI Rule 12, 14 & 15 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking production of the documents as mentioned in the said application, which were allegedly in the power and possession of the defendant. The said application of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant by filing a reply. The trial court vide the order dated 01.02.2011 allowed the said application of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to produce the documents as sought for by the plaintiff. The said order is under challenge in the writ petition No.4210/2011. It appears that thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant for production of the said documents. On 16.09.2011, the respondent-plaintiff submitted an application before the trial court for striking out the defence of the appellant-defendant under Order XI Rule 21 on the ground that the order dated 01.02.2011 passed by the trial court was not complied with by the defendant. The said application was also resisted by the appellant-defendant by filing a reply on 14.11.2011. The trial court vide the order dated 03.03.2012 allowed the said application of the plaintiff and struck out the defence of the defendant under Order XI Rule 21 of C.P.C. The said order is under challenge in the Civil Misc. Appeal No.2045/2012.
4. In the first limb of her arguments, Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal submitted that in the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff, under Rule-12, 14 & 15 of Order XI, no discovery of documents was sought, and what was sought was production of documents allegedly in possession of the petitioner-defendant. According to her, the trial court also without passing any order for the discovery of the documents under the said Rule 12, had straightway directed the defendant to produce the documents as sought by the plaintiff, which order as such was not sustainable in the eye of law. She further submitted that though the said order of trial court directing production of the documents was under challenge before this Court by way of writ petition, the trial court further allowed the application of the plaintiff for striking out the defence of the defendant, on the ground of non-compliance of the order dated 01.02.2011. According to her, the subsequent order striking out the defence of the defendant also suffers from gross illegality in as much as the defence of the defendant could be struck out under Order XI, Rule 21 only if the defendant had failed to comply with the order of the trial court to answer the interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of the documents. The order dated 01.02.2011 passed by the trial court being not for discovery of documents, and only for production of the documents, the said provision contained in Rule 21 could not be made applicable for striking out the defence of the petitioner-defendant. Pressing into services the provisions contained in Section 114, illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, Ms. Kasliwal submitted that at the most adverse inference could be drawn against the defendant for non production of the relevant documents or withholding the material evidence but under no circumstances the defence could be struck out for non-production of the documents under the said Rule 21. Ms. Kasliwal has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Versus Ibrahim Uddin & Anr., (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 148; the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of R. Ganga Reddy Versus P. Raghunatha Reddy, A.I.R. 1978 AP 457; as also the decision of this Court in the case of Amarsingh Versus Chatubhuj & Ors., A.I.R, 1957, Rajasthan 367, in support of her submissions.
5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. G.K. Garg, for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that in view of the subsequent order dated 03.03.2012 passed by the trial court striking out the defence of the petitioner-defendant, the writ petition challenging the order dated 01.02.2011 had become infructuous. Learned counsel drawing the attention of this Court to the copies of ordersheets drawn by the trial court, submitted that the petitioner-defendant had sought adjournments from time to time to produce the documents after the passing of the order dated 01.02.2011, and since the said order was not complied with by the defendant and since an inordinate delay had taken place causing great prejudice to the case of the respondent-plaintiff, the trial court had rightly struck out the defence of the petitioner-defendant under Order XI Rule 21 vide the order dated 03.03.2012. Mr. Garg, has fairly submitted that the trial court had not passed any specific order for the discovery of documents, and had passed the order dated 01.02.2011 for production of documents only in view of the application made by the plaintiff under Rule 12, 14 & 15 of Order XI read with Section 151 of C.P.C. According to him, the order of production of documents contemplated the discovery of documents also, and therefore, non-compliance of such order would entail striking out of the defence under Rule 21, and even otherwise the trial court could have exercised its inherent powers contained in Section 151 of C.P.C. to strike out the defence of the defendant in the interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of Court. The learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Basanagouda Versus Dr. S.B. Amarkhed & Ors; (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 612 and the decisions of Delhi High Court in the case of S.M.S. Udyog Ltd. Versus Flistex Magnetics Ltd. 103 (2003) Delhi Law Times 42 and in the case of M/s Narosa Publishing House Versus Jagbir Singh, A.I.R. 2000 Delhi 330, to buttress his submissions that the defence could be struck off for non-compliance of the order passed by the Court to prevent the abuse of process of Court.
6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant provisions contained in Rule 12, 13, 14 & Rule 21 of Order XI, reads as under:-
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, 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 though 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.
13. Affidavit of documents.-The affidavit to be made by a party against whom such order as is mentioned in 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.
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.
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.
7. From the conjoint reading of the above mentioned Rules, it transpires that Rule 12 deals with the power of the Court to pass necessary orders on the application made by any party to the suit seeking direction against the other party 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. The said rule as such does not deal with the power of the court to direct the production of documents. The power of the court to direct the parties to produce the documents is there in Rule 14. However, as per Rule 13, the party against whom any order under Rule 12 has been passed, has any objection against the production of the documents, then he has to file an affidavit in Form No.5 contained in Appendix-C. Thus, there appears to be some anamoly in the said provisions in as much as, when the court passes the order under Rule12 directing the party to make discovery of documents, there is no question of the party, against whom such order has been passed, filing the affidavit objecting the production of the documents. The order for production of documents could be made by the court under Rule 14 and not under Rule 12. Further, the non compliance of the order passed by the court regarding the discovery or inspection of the documents may result into dismissal of plaintiff's suit or striking out of the defendant's defence under Rule 21, however, non compliance of the order for production of the documents is not covered under Rule 21.
8. The Apex Court, in case of M.L. Shethi Vs. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379, has very succinctly dealt with these provisions contained in Rule 12, 13, 14 and 21 of Order XI, and observed as under in para 5:-
5........When the Court makes an order for discovery under the rule, the opposite party is bound to make an affidavit of documents and if he fails to do so, he will be subject to the penalties specified in Rule 21 of Order 11. An affidavit of documents shall set forth all the documents which are, or have been in his possession or power relating to the matter in question in the proceedings. And as to the documents which are not, but have been in his possession or power, he must state what has become of them and in whose possession they are, in order that the opposite party may be enabled to get production from the persons who have possession of them (see Form No.5 in Appendix C of the Civil Procedure Code). After he has disclosed the documents by the affidavit, he may be required to produce for inspection such of the documents as he is in possession of and as are relevant.
9. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it transpires that the application was filed by the plaintiff under Order XI, Rule 12, 14 & 15 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking production of certain documents as mentioned in the said application. The plaintiff as such had not sought for any discovery of documents in the said application. Further, though there was no order passed by the trial court for the discovery of the documents under Rule 12, the defendant resisted the said application of the plaintiff by filing reply and thereafter the trial court passed the order dated 01.02.2011 directing the defendant to produce the documents as sought for by the plaintiff. At this juncture, it requires to be noted that the production of documents could be ordered under Rule 14 of the said Order, and that non-production of the documents pursuant to the order of the court would not entail stringent consequence of defence of the defendant being struck out under Rule 21. The defence of the defendant could be struck out under Rule 21 only when the party fails to comply with the order of the Court to answer the interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of the documents. In the instant case, the trial court had not passed any order either for interrogatories or discovery or inspection of documents and hence stricto-sensu the defence of the petitioner-defendant could not have been struck out on the ground of the non-compliance of the order of production of the documents.
10. In the opinion of this Court, on the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the trial court was required to pass the order for the discovery of documents against the petitioner-defendant under Rule 12, and then the defendant was required to file the affidavit in the prescribed form as contemplated under Rule 13. If the said order of discovery passed by the Court was not complied with by the defendant, then the trial court would have been justified in striking out the defence of the defendant under Rule 21. However, it appears that both the parties as well as the trial court had proceeded with the applications filed by the respondent-plaintiff under thorough misconception of law. Neither the plaintiff had asked for the discovery of documents, nor the trial Court had passed the order under Rule 12. The defendant also did not file any affidavit stating as to which of the document he was objecting to produce, in the Form No.5, appendix-C, as per Rule 13. In absence of any order for discovery, the question of non-compliance of the said order, entailing striking out of defence of the defendant under Rule 21 also would not arise. Since the non-production of the documents did not entail striking out of the defence, the trial court has committed an error of law in striking out the defence of the defendant under Rule 21 of Order XI on the ground of non compliance of the order dated 01.02.2011 for production of the documents. As rightly submitted by Ms. Kasliwal for the petitioner-defendant, relying upon the latest decision of Apex Court in case of UOI Vs. Ibrahim Udddin (supra), at the most an adverse inference could have been drawn against the petitioner for non-production of the material documents, in view of the provisions contained in Section 114, illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, but the defence could not have been struck out for non-compliance of the order dated 01.02.2011.
11. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Garg that the trial court had struck out the defence exercising the inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC to prevent the abuse of process of law, the court is unable to countenance such submissions. The inherent powers of the court under Section 151 could not be exercised, when specific provisions are contained in the code to meet the necessities of the case. In case of Nainsingh Versus Koonwarjee & Ors, AIR 1970 SC 997, the Apex Court has observed that:-
.......Under the inherent power of Courts recognised by S.151, C.P.C., a Court has no power to do that which is prohibited by the Code. Inherent jurisdiction of the Court must be exercised subject to the rule that if the Code does contain specific provisions which would meet the necessities of the case, such provisions should be followed and inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked. In other words the Court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code where a party had his remedy provided elsewhere in the Code and he neglected to avail himself of the same. Further the power under Section 151 of the Code cannot be exercised as an appellate power.
12. As stated hereinabove, since the learned counsels for the parties and the trial court had proceeded under the misconception of law, this Court is of the opinion that both the orders dated 01.02.2011 and 03.03.2012 passed by the trial court deserve to be set-aside. The applications filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Rule 12, 14 & 15 of Order XI seeking production of documents and the application under Rule 21 of Order XI for striking out the defence of the defendant deserve to be decided afresh in accordance with law.
13. In that view of the matter, the orders dated 01.02.2011 and dated 03.03.2012 are set-aside. The trial court is directed to decide the applications filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XI CPC afresh and in accordance with law. Considering the nature of suit, the trial court is also directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possibly, and the parties are also directed to cooperate the trial court in proceeding further with the suit without any delay. The writ petition as well as the C.M.A. stand allowed accordingly.
(Bela M. Trivedi), J.
R.Vaishnav All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Ramesh Vaishnav Jr.P.A.