Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: answer interrogatories in Lrs Of Panna Lal vs Mohammad Umar on 27 November, 2017Matching Fragments
(5 of 9) [CMA-2334/2016] In Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. (supra), the Supreme Court, while interpreting Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, made following observations:
"Under Rule 14 of Order XI, the court is competent to direct any party to produce the document asked by the other party which is in his possession or power and relating to any material in question in such suit. Rule 15 Order XI provides for inspection of documents referred to in the pleadings or affidavits. Rule 18 thereof, empowers the court to issue order for inspection. Rule 21 thereof provides for very stringent consequences for non-compliance with the order of discovery, as in view of the said provisions in case the party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if he is a Plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution and if he is 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."
Order XI, Rule 21 of the CPC reads:
"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."
Section 136 of the CPC, 1882, corresponding to Order XI, Rule 21 of the C.P.C. 1908, was based upon Order XXXI, Rule 20, now replaced by Order XXIV, Rule 16 framed under the Judicature Act. The practice of the English Courts is, and it has always been, to make the order a conditional one, and to grant a little further time for compliance. In practice this provision is virtually obsolete.
Even assuming that in certain circumstances the provisions of Order XI, 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, (7 of 9) [CMA-2334/2016] unless the court is satisfied that the plaintiff was wilfully 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. (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 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.
So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it transpires that the application was filed by the plaintiff under Order XI, Rule 12, 14 & 15 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking production of certain documents as mentioned in the said application. The plaintiff as such had not sought for any discovery of documents in the said application. Further, though there was no order passed by the trial Court for the discovery of the documents under Rule 12, the defendant resisted the said application of the plaintiff by filing reply and thereafter the trial Court passed the order dt. 01.02.2011 directing the defendant to produce the documents as sought for by the plaintiff. At this juncture, it requires to be noted that the production of documents could be ordered under Rule 14 of the said Order, and that non-production of the documents pursuant to the order of the Court would not entail stringent consequence of defence of the defendant being struck out under Rule 21. The defence of the defendant could be struck out under Rule 21 only when the party fails to comply with the order of the Court to answer the interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of the documents. In the instant case, the trial Court had not passed any order either for interrogatories or discovery or inspection of documents and hence stricto-sensu the defence of the petitioner- defendant could not have been struck out on the ground of the non-compliance of the order of production of the documents."