Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"An order striking out the defence under Order 11, Rule 21 should be made unless there has been obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the defendant or wilful attempt to disregard the order of the Court, to produce the documents. Even assuming that in certain circumstances the provisions of Order 11, Rule 21 must be strictly enforced, It does not follow that a suit can be lightly thrown out or a defence struck out, without adequate reasons. The test laid down is whether the default is wilful. In the case of a plaintiff. It entails in the dismissal of the suit and, therefore, an order for dismissal ought not to be made under Order 11, Rule 21. unless the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff was wilfully withholding Information by refusing to answer interrogatories or by withholding the documents which he ought to discover. In such an event, the plaintiff must take the consequence of having his claim dismissed due to his default. i.e. by suppression of information which he was bound to give. In the case of the defendant, he is visited with the penalty that his defence is liable to be struck out and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended the suit. The power for dismissal of a suit or striking out of the defence under Order 11, Rule 21. should be exercised only where the defaulting party fails to attend the hearing or is guilty of prolonged or Inordinate and inexcusable delay which may cause substantial or serious prejudice to the opposite party." In the matter of Babbar Sewing Machine Co. (AIR 1978 SC 1436) (supra), the Supreme Court further held that 'The defendant, in compliance with the Court's order came all the way from a distant place and was waiting in his lawyer's office from 6 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on the date prescribed for production of account books and the material on record showed that the appointed scheduled time and place for Inspection of defendant's account books was 6.30 p.m. at defendants lawyer's office and the plaintiff and his counsel did not turn up and the plaintiff was also afforded another opportunity of inspection of defendant's books, the trial Court was not justified in holding that there was non-compliance of its order. Consequently, the order of the trial Court striking out the defence was liable to be set aside."

It further held that -

"In an application to sue in forma pauperis, discovery on affidavit of documents relating to the bank accounts of the applicant namely pass books, cheque books, counterfoils etc. are certainly relevant to the inquiry of pauperism as they would be throwing light on the means of the applicants to pay the Court- fees or otherwise."

12. In view of these legal precedents and observations of the Courts, the present revision petition will have to be assessed for the purpose of coming to a correct conclusion whether the trial Court committed the error of law or of jurisdictional function in passing the order which is under challenge. By that order, the trial Court struck out the defence of the present petitioner - I.D.A. on account of not making the discovery of the documents as prayed for by the opponent. In this context provisions of Order 11, CPC will have to be considered. Order 11 Rule 1 provides for discovery by interrogatories by providing that in any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories, each of such persons is required to answer. Rule 2 provides - that the particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the Court, and while deciding such application the Court shall take into account any offer, which may be made by the party sought to be interrogated to deliver particulars, or to make admissions, or to produce documents relating to the matters in question, or any of them. Rule 4 provides - Form of interrogatories - Interrogatories shall be in Form No. 2 in Appendix-C. with such variations as circumstances may require. Rule 6 -- Speaks about the objections to interrogatories by answer and power to the Court for deciding the admissibility of the objections to answer any interrogatories. Rule 7 provides - For setting aside and striking out interrogatories. Rules 8 and 9 provide - for affidavit-in-answer to be filed within a particular time and the form of affidavit-in-answer to interrogatories in Form No. 3 inAppendix-C. Rule 11 provides - the power of the Court to order any person interrogated to answer completely, sufficiently as required by party putting the interrogatories. Thereafter comes Rule 13 which speaks of application for discovery of documents.

13B. Rule 20 provides for premature discovery and provides a power to Court to deal with the situation appropriately if it comes to the conclusion that the discovery is premature, and after dealing with the interrogatories and discovery, come the provisions of Section 21 which provides for non-compliance with order for discovery, and provides punishment for defaulting party. It provides (!) 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, Ifany. 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, opportunity of being heard.) Sub-rule (2) provides 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.

14. The parry who fails to answer the interrogatories or to discover the documents for inspection, has to be punished otherwise, such party would be seeking adjournments after adjournments and would be avoiding answering the Interrogatories or making the discoveries of the documents sought. Court has been provided with the power of punishing such parry by putting it 'to a zero point. If it happens to be plaintiff, to make it to suffer the punishments of being forbidden to bring another suit on account of such dismissal and if It happens to be defendant, by striking out his defence and putting him to such a situation as if he had not defended the suit. That means making him to participate in the suit without pleadings and defence.