Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. Rules 2, 12 and 15 speak about interrogatories proposed to be delivered, discovery and inspection of documents referred to in the pleadings or affidavit on applications being filed, for the respective purposes.

23. Order XI Rule 21 speaks about consequences of violations of directions issued under Rules 2, 12 and 15 CPC and is extracted hereinbelow:

"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, RFA.No.471 OF 2004 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.

25. It is clear from Order XI Rule 21 CPC that only when a party fails to comply with directions issued 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 be placed in the RFA.No.471 OF 2004 same position as if he had not defended the case. Therefore, the power under Order XI Rule 21 C.P.C is strictly meant to be invoked only in the three situations enumerated under Rules 2, 12 and 15 of Order XI C.P.C and cannot be invoked in any other context. In the case on hand, it appears from the records of the case that the defendant has filed written statement raising contentions contrary to those raised by the plaintiff and based on those, issues have also been settled by the court. Therefore, I.A No.1495/2000 having been preferred after settlement of the issues, seeking for issuance of a direction to the defendants to produce the documents mentioned therein for enabling the court to adjudicate the various issues settled in the case, it cannot be said that the title of the application was mis-quoted by the petitioner as Order XVI Rule 6 C.P.C, as contended by him. The party applying for the relief being the master of the same and once he has opted to file it under a provision, it is improper for the court to pass orders in it by treating it as one filed under a different provision. Neither in the affidavit filed in I.A No.1495/2000 nor in the petition supporting the same, prayer was not made by the petitioner seeking for discovery or inspection of documents as contemplated under Rules 12 or 15 of Order XI C.P.C. RFA.No.471 OF 2004 The order passed in I.A No.1495/2000 on 31.05.2000 was only to the effect; "Heard. For documents or affidavit". Despite grant of several opportunities to produce the documents, the defendant failed to comply with the same. He neither produced the documents called for nor filed an affidavit as directed by the court. Thereupon, the I.A was closed on 16.03.2001 after recording the factum. On 29.05.2001, I.A No.2536/2001 was filed under Order XI Rule 21 C.P.C to struck out the defence. The I.A was posted for filing objection to 14.06.2001. Objection was filed on 14.06.2001 and I.A was posted for hearing to 15.06.2001. I.A was heard on that day and was posted for passing orders to 18.06.2001. Thereafter the I.A was posted successively to 21.06.2001 and 25.06.2001. Ultimately on 25.06.2001, the court has passed an order in the application striking out the defence for the reason that there was willful and deliberate default on the part of the defendant to comply with the directions repeatedly issued by the court in I.A No.1495/2000 to produce documents. On 25.06.2001 itself, judgment was also passed in O.S No.103/1998, granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff.

35. The above views taken by this Court are well fortified by the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant and referred to supra. In Chinnappan's case, the Madras High Court has laid the dictum :

"4. xx xx xx Order 11 R.21, CPC 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. "

RFA.No.471 OF 2004 This Court has also held :

"The provisions of R.21 has to be exercised with care and caution and is to be the last resort. A plaint shall not be thrown out or the defence struck off without adequate reasons. The test laid down under R.21 is whether the default is willful. If it is on the part of the plaintiff it entails in the dismissal of the suit. Such an order ought not to be made unless Court is satisfied that he was willfully withholding information, refusing to answer the interrogatories or withholding the documents which he ought to discover. In such an event, plaintiff must take the consequence of having his suit dismissed. On the other hand, if it is the case of the defendant his defence is liable to be struck off and he is to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended the suit. But it is settled legal position that Court should exercise the stringent provisions only in extreme cases, where there is contumacy on the part of the defendant or a willful attempt to disregard the order of the Court. If there was no default much less any willful default on the part of the defendant to comply with the order of the Court, Court is not to exercise the stringent power."