Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

'5. Mr. Maitra next contended that irregularities about the counting of ballot papers and proxy votes were referred to in Annexure E/1 to the plaint and as such it cannot be contended that the dispute was related only to the proxy votes of Orissa. Mr. Maitra, further contended that for passing an order under Or. 39 R. 7 of the C.P. Code it is not necessary that the said provision must confine to the subject matter of the suit itself and appropriate order can be passed under Order 39 R. 7 C.P. Code even in respect of matters in respect of which any question may arise in the suit and for this proposition Mr. Maitra relied on a decision reported in AIR 1975 All page 399. It may be stated in this connection that even assuming that the provision of Or. 39 R. 7 may be stated in this connection relate not only to the subject matter of the suit but also in other matters in which any question may arise relating to the suit, no commission can be issued for the purpose of collecting evidence in a suit. In any event, such commission should not be issued for making inventories relating to ballot papers by ex parte orders without proper verification as to the essential requirement of such a step even in a case where Or. 39 R. 7 C.P. Code is otherwise applicable. Mr. Maitra, further contended that in appropriate cases, the Election Tribunal has looked into the ballot papers for ascertaining the position and in this context he refers to a decision reported in AIR 1964 SC page 1249. It may be stated that as a proposition of law it cannot be said that even in appropriate cases the ballot papers cannot be looked into by the Court for proper adjudication of a dispute between the parties but what is emphasized is that such action should not be taken without extreme care and caution and only in such cases where inspection of ballot papers is essentially necessary for proper adjudication and the Court is satisfied on evidence that such extreme step is necessary. Mr. Maitra further contended that issue of an inventory commission is a matter of discretion of the Court and if the Court has exercised such discretion there should be no interference under S. 115 C.P. Code particularly when such exercise of discretion is not perverse. The question of exercising discretion, however, does not arise in this case because we are of the view that an inventory commission cannot be issued for the purpose of fishing out some evidence which may be adduced by either of the parties in the suit. It is, therefore, an improper exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below and such improper exercise has occasioned material failure of justice. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute. There will however, be no order as to costs. The prayer for stay of the operation of the order is refused.' As sub-rule 3 of Rule 1A of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers a Court to permit a defendant to produce a document which ought to have been produced with written statement a liberal view should be taken so that a defendant has a reasonable opportunity to defend his case. A defendant does not come to Court voluntarily but he has to appear to answer the case brought against him by the plaintiff thus all reasonable opportunity should be given in accordance with law for the defendant to defend his case. Although the defendant/petitioner has not taken out a separate application for grant of leave but in the said application in which he seeks summons for production of the document he has shown the necessity of producing the said document which has to be considered in the interest of justice.