Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Order 11 Rule 14 empowers the Court at any point to order production of such documents relating to any matter in question in a suit as are in the power and possession of a party as the Court thinks right. On production of the documents, the Court is empowered to deal with such documents as appears to Court to be just.

10. Order 11 Rule 21 reads as under: -

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.

(underlining supplied)

14. In The Lyalpur Sugar Mills and Co. And Anr.

Vs. The Ram Chandra Gur Sahai Cotton Mills and Co. through Sri Ram AIR 1922 All 235, the Division Bnech of Allahabad High Court held as under:

"All the applications on behalf of the plaintiff firm except the last one dated the 28th July 1919, were applications under Order XI, Rule 14. They were merely for the production of documents into Court. At the first blush it does appear that the conduct of Jai Ram Das was contumacious, but we find that there is evidence on the record to show that as early as the 31st May 1919 in answer to the interrogatories served upon him by the plaintiff firm he had stated distinctly that the documents that were called for from him were not in his possession. But if it be conceded for the sake of argument for a moment that Jai Ram Das was guilty of disobedience of the order of the Court, was the Court justified in striking off his defence? The order of the Court to Jai Ram Das to produce the books was an order made under Order XI, Rule 14, The non-compliance of that order does not warrant the striking off the defence of the party, which is guilty of the not-compliance of the order. The grounds upon which the discretion is given to a Trial Court for striking off the defence of a defendant are given in Rule 21 of Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code. According to the said rule there are three grounds only upon which a Trial Court is justified in striking off the defence of a defendant or dismiss the suit of a plaintiff, namely, (1) the refusal to answer interrogatories, (2) the refusal to make discovery of documents, (3) refusal to permit inspection of documents. Now, Rule 14 of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure does not relate either to the answering of interrogatories or the discovery or inspection of documents. The rule relating to discovery is embodied in Rule 12 of Order XI and the rule relating to the inspection of documents is to be found in Rule 18 of the same Order. In the present case the learned Subordinate Judge made no order either under Rule 12 or Rule 18 of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is, however, contended on behalf of the plaintiff firm that the notice, which was issued to Jai Ram Das, was one that required inspection of documents called for from him. The form of notice to be issued under Order XI, Rule 14 is given in appendix C, Form No. 6. The notice that was issued in the present case does not comply with the Form given in Appendix C."

(underlining supplied)

17. In Chinnappan versus Ramachandran, AIR 1989 Mad 314, the High Court of Judicature at Madras following the decision in Sithamalli Subbayyer (Supra) held as under:

"It may now be considered whether the application filed by the appellant before the court below for the exercise of powers under Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. was maintainable. Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. to the extent to which that provision is relevant on the facts of this case, states that where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a defendant, 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. It is thus seen that the remedy of having the defence of a defendant struck out would arise only when he fails to comply with an order to answer interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of documents and not in other cases. In this case, the respondent was not delivered interrogatories for being answered by an order of Court under Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. Likewise, the respondent was not directed by an order of court to make discovery on oath of the documents in his possession or power relating to any matter in question in the suit under Order 11, Rule 12, C.P.C. No order for inspection of documents was also passed against the respondent under Order 11, Rule 12, C.P.C. The exercise of the power vested in the Court to strike out the defence of a defendant and to place him in the same position as if he had not defended the suit is limited under Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. to cases where the defendant fails to comply with an order to answer interrogatories or an order for discovery or inspection of documents. In other words, an order under Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. cannot be passed in cases falling outside the purview of Order 11, Rules 12 and 18; C.P.C. In Sithamalli Subbayer v. Ramanathan Chettiar : (1924) 46 MLJ 350, an order was passed by Court under Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C. directing the plaintiff to produce some documents upon oath and on the production of some, documents, the defendant inspected a few of them and finding that some documents directed to be produced were not produced, applied to the court to take action under Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. dismissing the suit. That application was dismissed holding that Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. did not apply to cases of non-compliance with an order for production and, the dismissal of the application was upheld by this Court.

22. The impugned order is an order made under Order 11, Rule 14, The non-compliance of that order does not warrant the striking out of the defence of the appellant. The grounds upon which the discretion is given to a Court to strike out the defence of a defendant are given in Rule 21 of Order 11 CPC. According to the said rule, there are three grounds only upon which a Court is justified in striking out the defence of a defendant or in dismissing the suit of a plaintiff, namely, (1) the refusal to answer interrogatories, (2) the refusal to make discovery of documents, (3) refusal to permit inspection of documents. Rule 14 of Order 11 CPC does not relate either to the answering of interrogatories or the discovery or inspection of documents.