Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Chinnappan vs Ramachandran on 20 July, 1988

Kundoju Venkateswarlu vs Kundoju Seetharamaiah And Anr. on 22 July, 1997

4. It is to be seen in the present case that the defendant, who is the present revision petitioner, filed I.A.257/94 under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 C.P.C. requesting the Court to direct the plaintiffs to produce the original partition agreement dated 1-2-1991, which was said to be in the possession of the plaintiffs on the ground that such document is necessary for deciding the dispute in the present suit. The said petition was contested by the plaintiffs as seen from the counter filed by them in that petition, contending that there was no such partition agreement executed on 1-2-1991 and he was not in possession of any such document and as such, production of such document by them does not arise. It is no doubt true that the said petition was allowed by the Court on 22-11-1994 and the plaintiffs did not produce any such document into Court in pursuance of those directions. The defendant subsequently filed I.A.373/95 under Order 11 Rule 21 C.P.C. requesting the Court to dismiss the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to produce the above said document as per the orders in I.A.257/94. The learned Counsel for the respondents herein contends that Order 11 Rule 21 C.P.C. cannot be utilised for seeking relief of dismissal of the suit in the present set of circumstances; that the plaintiffs, right from the beginning, are contending that they are not in possession of any such document and as such, the question of producing such document into Court does not arise, and that simply on account of the directions given in I.A.257/94, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have failed to produce the document and that, therefore, the suit cannot be dismissed under Order 11 Rule 21 C.P.C. He has also tried to rely upon the decision of the Madras High Court reported in Chinnappan v. Ramachandran, in support of his contention in this regard. It is seen from a perusal of the said decision that the observations made therein clearly applies to the present facts. That was also a case where one of the parties to the suit was directed by the Court to produce a document into Court and the said party had contended that there is no such documentlying with him and therefore the question of producing such document by him does not arise. In that case, the said plea that the document was not available with him, was taken by the party at a latter stage and not at the time when the direction was given by the Court to produce the document. In the present case, the plaintiffs contended even in their counter filed in I.A.257/94 that no such document is available with them and was never executed between the parties and that, therefore, the question of producing such document does not arise. In the above said decision of the Madras High Court, it is observed that a mere failure to produce the documents directed by the Court to be produced under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC does not enable the Court to exercise its powers under Order 11 Rule 21 C.P.C. Order 11 Rule 21 CPC postulates that when a 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. In the present case, such conditions are not fulfilled, so as to invoke the provisions of Order 11 Rule 21 CPC. There is only a direction from the Court to the plaintiffs to produce the document as per the orders in I.A.257/94 which was filed only under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 C.P.C. As already stated above, the plaintiffs specifically contended in that petition that they are not having any document as mentioned in the petition and that no such document was ever executed between the parties and as such production of such document by them does not arise. Under such circumstances, the provisions of Order 11 Rule 21 C.P.C. cannot be utilised for seeking dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R B Reddy - Full Document

M/S G.D. Goenka Private Limited vs Standard Chartered Bank on 22 August, 2014

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid affidavit and the submission made, DRT by order dated 18.06.2013 held that Order XI, Rule 12 of the Code was not applicable and therefore the application under Order XI, Rule 21 would not be maintainable. The earlier directions in order dated 14.03.2011 issued were under Order XI, Rule 14 of the Code. This finding has been affirmed by DRAT. There is considerable authority for the proposition that directions issued under Order XI, Rule 14 of the Code cannot and should not be made subject matter of an Order XI, Rule 21 of the Code. (See Chinnappan Vs. Ramachandran (AIR 1989 Mad 314) and judgments quoted therein and Gur Prasad Shyam Babu v. State W.P.(C) 5341/2014 Page 6 of 10 Bank of India, (AIR 1994 All 151)
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Khanna - Full Document
1