Punjab-Haryana High Court
Onkar Singh vs Ravinder Malhotra on 3 December, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No. 3310 of 2013
DATE OF DECISION : December 03, 2013
ONKAR SINGH
.......PETITIONER
VERSUS
RAVINDER MALHOTRA
.... RESPONDENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. BANGARH
...
Present: Mr. CL Pawar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate, for the respondent.
S. P. BANGARH, J.
Petitioner, herein, is defendant in Civil Suit No.23 of 2007, that has been filed against him by the respondent, before the trial Court, for recovery of ` 3,98,747-23.
During the pendency of the suit, the respondent, herein, filed an application for directing the petitioner to produce the following documents:-
i) Certified copies of balance sheets of defendant shop for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
ii) Copies (Certified or attested) of ST.VII return for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
iii)Sale and purchase vouchers of his shop for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
iv)Copies or original credit notes issued by the Malhotra Electronics Garhshankar (Business conception of plaintiff) to the defendant for the Kang Gursharan Singh 2013.12.10 15:03 I am the author of this document years 2004-05 and 2005-06.Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3310 of 2013 2
v) Receipt of payments issued by plaintiff to the defendant during the period for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06."
It is the case of the respondent that he supplied electronic goods to the petitioner for a sum of ` 2,85,546/-, that have not been paid, but the petitioner has been alleging that he had already paid the said amount to the respondent. The petitioner is an income tax payee and is holding Permanent Account Number. An income tax payee is required to show the payments in his balance-sheet, filled annually. These documents are in possession of the petitioner and are essential documents for deciding the real controversy between the parties. So, prayer was made that the petitioner may be directed to produce the documents (supra), on the file of the suit.
This application, on the other hand, was opposed by the petitioner by filing written reply, thereto, averring, therein, that the suit filed by the respondent, as also, the facts mentioned in the suit and in the application, are absolutely wrong. It is the duty of the respondent to prove his case independently and he has no right to obtain any document from the petitioner, who is not liable to produce any document stated in the application. Consequently, prayer for dismissal of the application was, thus, made.
After hearing both the sides, the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 11.4.2013 (Annexure P-3), allowed the application and directed the petitioner, herein, to produce the Kang Gursharan Singh 2013.12.10 15:03 I am the author of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3310 of 2013 3 documents mentioned in the application, that have been reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment.
Aggrieved against the order (supra), the petitioner, who is defendant before the trial Court, has come up in this civil revision with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for dismissal of the application, that was allowed by the trial Court, vide the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a similar application was filed by the respondent earlier, that was dismissed vide order dated 24.4.2009. He further contended that after about four years i.e. on 9.8.2012, the respondent filed the present application, on similar grounds, for direction to the petitioner to produce documents, whereto, detailed reply was given, which was allowed vide the impugned order, without considering the merits and demerits of the application. He further contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is against law and facts of the case and, therefore, is liable to be set aside.
He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Punj Star Industries (P) Ltd. v. Atna Investment Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi), 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 628, wherein, it was held that the plaintiff cannot ask for production of documents in possession of defendant, as to where the latter invested the money in question. It was further held in this judgment that fishing and roving inquiry is not permissible. So, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of this judgment, contended that the impugned order may be set aside and the Kang Gursharan Singh 2013.12.10 15:03 I am the author of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3310 of 2013 4 application for production of documents filed by the respondent before the trial Court, may be dismissed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that it has nowhere been averred by the petitioner in the reply that the documents sought to be produced, are privileged documents. He further contended that since the documents sought to be summoned from the petitioner are not privileged documents, there should have been no hesitation by him to produce those documents, for adjudicating the controversy between the parties.
Thoughtful consideration has been given to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Sharvan Kumar v. Sumeet Kumar Garg, 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 456, wherein, it was held that the Court may issue direction under Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to any party to the suit, to make discovery on oath, of documents which are or have been in his possession or power. If, such discovery is found to be unnecessary, then such a prayer can be declined on the ground that it is not necessary for disposing of the suit. It was held that request for production of documents, in terms of under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is never declined, if documents relate to any fact in issue or relevant facts. It was held that refusal can only be in regard to privileged documents.
In the judgment of this Court (supra), it was further held that the judgment in the case of Punj Star Industries (P) Kang Gursharan Singh 2013.12.10 15:03 I am the author of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3310 of 2013 5 Ltd. (supra), has no application to the facts of that case.
The production of documents by the petitioner shall not lead to roving and fishing inquiry. So, the facts and circumstances of the judgment in the case of Punj Star Industries (P) Ltd. (supra), are not akin to the case in hand, especially, when it has been enshrined in Rule 14 of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, that 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.
In view the rule (supra), there is hardly any scope for dismissal of such an application, that is filed under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As already noticed, only exception could be raised with regard to the privileged documents under Sections 122, 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Rule 14 of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, is confined to production of only those documents that relate to any fact in issue or relevant fact. Under Rule 14 of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, all the documents listed in the application are required to be produced by the petitioner in the Court and for assisting it to arrive at right conclusion in the suit. At this stage, it is arduous to hold that the documents sought to be produced, are not germane for just decision of the suit.
The recovery suit, that has been filed by the Kang Gursharan Singh 2013.12.10 15:03 I am the author of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3310 of 2013 6 respondent against the petitioner, is based on certain documents. The petitioner has been claiming that no amount is due for payment to the respondent. He had a business transaction with the respondent. He must be holding documentary proof to prove that he may have discharged his obligation towards the electronic goods that have been purchased by him from the respondent and the documents sought to be produced, will be relevant for decision of the suit and even, on the basis of those documents, the trial Court may reach at a conclusion that, in view of the documents of the petitioner, that are being sought to be produced from him, no amount is outstanding against him for payment to the respondent, relating to the business transaction, that had taken place between the parties, regarding sale and purchase of electronic goods.
Earlier application, that was not pressed and dismissed, on 24.4.2009, moved by the respondent, was for supplying better particulars. So, this application was not for production of documents, like the application in question.
There is, thus, no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, and the same is, hereby, upheld and affirmed.
Resultantly, the civil revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs, sans prejudice to the merits of the main suit.
December 03, 2013 ( S. P. BANGARH )
Kang JUDGE
Kang Gursharan Singh
2013.12.10 15:03
I am the author of this
document
Chandigarh