Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9.2 To buttress his submission, learned counsel relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Babbar Sewing Machine Co v. Trilok Nath Mahajan, reported in 1978 4 SCC 188, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph Nos.14, 15 and 16, which read as under:-

"14. Even assuming that in certain circumstances the provisions of order Xl 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 be made under order XI rule 21, unless the court is satisfied that the plaintiff was willfully withholding information by refusing to answer interrogatories or by withholding the documents which he sought 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.(2) 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 XI 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.

Arguments           on      behalf            of        counsel     for      the

respondents/defendants:

10. Per contra, Mr. Amit Saran, Mr. Raj Bishnoi and Mr. S.S. Gour, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants, while supporting the impugned order, argued that the learned Trial Court had considered the provisions under Order XI Rule 21(1) CPC and had also considered the entire record threadbare prior to passing the impugned order. The Court below has rightly observed that it was a case of wilful default on the part of the appellants-plaintiffs in complying with the order dated 23.03.2006 and, thereafter, rightly (Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 03:26:31 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8652] (13 of 26) [CMA-1393/2008] dismissed the suit in question. Learned counsel further argued that, in the earlier round of litigation, this Hon'ble Court itself had specified that the respondents-defendants were free to file an application under Order XI Rule 21(1) CPC, rather than filing an application seeking the same relief, which had already been granted by the learned Trial Court on 23.03.2006. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the respondents had rightly filed the application in question, which was considered by the learned Trial Court in its correct perspective. 10.1 Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Babbar Sewing Machine Co. (supra), while asserting that, if the Court comes to the conclusion that obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the appellants- plaintiffs is proved and a wilful attempt is made to disregard the order of the Court, then the Court should exercise powers under Order XI Rule 21(1) CPC. In the present case, the obstinacy or contumacy of the appellants and their wilful default was established, inasmuch as, they had agreed to submit the documents and, based on their agreement, the order dated 23.03.2006 was passed. Thereafter, the appellants resiled from their undertaking and refused to produce the documents. Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order. 10.2 Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kuchimanchi Subba Rao & Ors. v. Kanchana Prabhakara Rao, MANU/AP/0106/2006, and judgment of Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench, in the case of Manager, Ramkrishna Ramnath Bidi Factory v. First Civil (Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 03:26:31 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8652] (14 of 26) [CMA-1393/2008] Judge, First Class, Nagpur & Ors., MANU/MH/0061/1959, while asserting that, in case there is a wilful default in not answering interrogatories or producing the documents, the learned Trial Court should proceed to strike out the defence under Order XI Rule 21(1) CPC.

11. Heard, learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record.

QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:-

There are two questions for consideration before this Court;

(1) Under what circumstances the power under Order XI Rule 21(1) CPC can be exercised by the learned Trial Court?

(2) Whether, in the facts of the present case, the power under Order XI Rule 21(1) CPC could have been invoked by the learned Trial Court?

Analysis:-

Re- Question No.1-:

12. As far as Question No.1 is concerned, consideration of a few provisions of the CPC would be relevant prior to answering the same. Order XI CPC deals with discovery and inspection. Rule 1 provides for discovery by interrogatories. Rule 2 specifies the particulars of interrogatories to be submitted, whereas Rule 3 deals with costs of interrogatories and Rule 4 deals with the form of interrogatories. Rule 5 deals with the procedure when the party is a corporation. Rule 6 deals with objections to interrogatories by answer, whereas Rule 7 deals with setting aside and striking out interrogatories on the ground of being unreasonable, vexatious or on other grounds. Rules 8 and 9 deal with affidavits and answers (Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 03:26:31 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8652] (15 of 26) [CMA-1393/2008] in the form of affidavits, whereas Rule 10 deals with no exception to affidavits in certain cases. Rule 11 deals with an order to answer or answer further interrogatories and provides as under:-

13.1 It is thus clear that answering of interrogatories, application for discovery of documents, application for production of documents and inspection of documents are distinct and different. The legislature never uses two separate words for the same thing in a statute. In the present case, "production of documents" and "discovery of documents" have been used separately, signifying two different concepts, and different procedures have been (Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 03:26:31 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8652] (18 of 26) [CMA-1393/2008] prescribed, as is evident from a perusal of Rules 12 and 14 under Order XI CPC. This, coupled with the fact that Rule 21 confines its applicability within the four corners of the provisions specified therein, i.e., failure of a party to comply with any order to: (i) answer interrogatories, (ii) make discovery of documents, and (iii) permit inspection of documents. Only in such eventualities, the question of striking out the defence, in the case of defendants, or dismissal of the plaint, in the case of non-compliance by the appellants-plaintiffs, would arise.