Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The Order XI of the Code which encompasses difference stages for the parties to the suit to get the documents which they find relevant for deciding controversy in the suit, also confers the powers under Rule 21 to the Court to strike out the defence of the defendant on defiance shown by the defendant to the orders to answer interrogatories, for discovery or inspection of documents but not for the order made under Order XI, Rule 14 of the Code. At this stage, in the context for exercise of powers for striking out the defence of the defendant, reference to some judgments need to be made.

12. Order XI, Rule 21 of the civil P. C. reads:

"21. 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 accordingly."

14. Even assuming that in certain circumstances the provisions of O. XI, R. 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 be made under O XI, R. 21, unless the court is satisfied that the plaintiff was wilfully withholding in formation refusing to answer interrogatories or by withholding the documents which be 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 : Denvillier v. Myers, HC-NIC Page 13 of 30 Created On Sun Oct 01 11:14:22 IST 2017 (1883) WN 58. 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 O. XI, R. 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.

10. xxx xxx xxx

11. The crucial question then is whether on the facts of this case trial Court was justified in striking off the defence under Rule 21 of Order XI of Code of Civil Procedure. To attract Rule 21, the party shall fail to comply with an order to answer the interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of documents. I.A. 837 of 1987 was filed for a direction to the appellant to produce the document. It was not an application either to answer any interrogatories as provided under Rule 1 or for discovery of document as provided under Rule 12 of Order XI of Code. Even though Rule 11 was shown in that application, it is only an application filed under Rule 14 of Order XI. The power provided under Rule 21 can be invoked only within the ambit of the said section. Such an order could be passed only if the Court had earlier passed an order under Rule 2 or 11 to answer the interrogatories, or an order under Rule 12 to make discovery on oath of the documents or an order for inspection of documents under Rule 15 of Order XI of the Code. An order passed by the Court to the defendant to produce such document in his possession is only an order under Rule 14 of Order XI. Its non-compliance will not visit the stringent order HC-NIC Page 17 of 30 Created On Sun Oct 01 11:14:22 IST 2017 provided under Rule 21 of Order XI of the Code. Rule 14 of Order XI reads :-