Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The following questions arise for determination of the case:-

(i) Whether the application for production of documents was an application for answering the interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of documents, as provided under order 11 Rule 12 CPC, to which Order 11 Rule 21 is attracted and which was amenable to appeal and not revision or, whether this order passed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC and was amenable to appeal?

Similarly, Rule 15 of this Order also empowers the Court to issue a direction to the party to produce the documents for inspection on or before the settlement of issues. However, these two provisions of Order 11 Rule 14 and 15 cannot be analogous to Rule 12 CPC, which lays down quite a different procedure and inscribes different format for answering about the interrogatories and discovery of documents. As such, any order passed under Order 11 Rules 14 and 15 CPC does not attract the penalty, as provided under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC and is also not amenable to appeal, as provided under Order 43 Rule (f) of the CPC. Therefore, the objection raised by counsel for the petitioners that the order is appealable and not revisionable cannot be sustained.

Therefore, in these circumstances, the petitioners cannot be held to be guilty of willful default or disobedience. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also fallen heavily by discouraging striking off the defence even while exercising powers under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC. The Hon'ble supreme Court in case M/s Babbar Sewing Machine Co. Vs. Tirlok Nath Mahajan, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1436, has held to the following effect:-

"An order striking out the defence under Order 11 Rule 21 should be made unless there has been obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the defendant or willful attempt to disregard the order of the Court to produce the documents. 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, unless the court is satisfied that the plaintiff was willfully withholding information refusing to answer interrogatories or by withholding the documents which are 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. 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."

No doubt, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case Indore Development Authority Vs. Satyapal Anand and another, 2000 AIR (M.P.) 74, observed that the party who fails to answer the interrogatories or to produce the document for inspection, has to be prevented, otherwise such party would be seeking adjournment after adjournment and would be avoiding to answer the interrogatories for making the discovery of the document sought.

But, in this case, it is not a private defendant, but a Corporate body having no special interest in any of the documents and it never showed any negligence or acted contemptuously while producing these documents. Further, as discussed by the trial Court, the case was not fixed for supplying the interrogatories and discovery of the document, as provided under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC but it was dealing with the application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC.