Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) AIR 2000 Madhya Pradesh 74 (Indore Development Authority, Indore v. Satyapal Anand and another);

13D. Thus, it is pertinent to note that the Legislature had specific intention to deal with the topics of interrogatories, discovery, inspection together. These things have been brought to the aid of the Court or to the aid of litigants for the purpose of pinpointing the averments of adversaries. The Legislature did not want to allow the litigants to have the opportunity and leisure of burdening the record with Irrelevant averments, objections. The Legislature did not want the trials to go on dilated on account of irrelevant averments of litigants, production of irrelevant documents by the litigants and keeping back the documents from the notice of the Court and thereby polluting the stream of the administration of justice which should always be free flowing one and should be aimed totally for the purpose of finding out the truth for the purpose of adjudicating the issues in controversy between the rival parties. Therefore, it is to be noted that these provisions are not to be taken lightly. If these provisions are read together and the impact created by it is understood properly in proper spirit, one will have to come to a conclusion that the provisions are not only important but are having a mandatory effect on the course of trials. If the Court is satisfied that a particular party is keeping back the documents which have been demanded by a party, the Court has power to punish such a party for adopting such evasive and tricky attitude for the purpose of suppressing the truth from the notice of the Court. The party cannot be permitted to have a luxury of seeking the adjournments, for avoiding the compliance with order of the Court in answering the interrogatories or discovering the documents sought by the adversary for the inspection or for the purpose of bringing it to the notice of the Court. Rule. 21 has to be given importance in this context because that is the powerful hammer which has been vested in the hands of Court for ordering the orderly behaviour of a party in the trial.

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.

(iv) AIR 1976 SC 309 (Paradise Industrial Corporation v. Kiln Plastics Products);

"21. Where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery of 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 accordingly."
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.