Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)Sithamalli Subbayyer vs M.L.M. Ramanathan Chettiar on 12 December, 1923
"..........From the terms of the Judge's order as well as from the previous orders for production which are on the record, there is no doubt that those orders were passed under Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C. and that respondent-defendant No. 1 applied for orders under that provision. This being so, it would be enough to dispose of this appeal to say that the learned Judge had no authority to dismiss the plaintiffs suit for disobedience of an order under Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C. That was decided in so far as this Court is concerned in Subbayer v. Ramanathan Chettiar, (1924) 46 Mad LJ 350 : (AIR 1924 Mad 582) which followed a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Lyalpur Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ramchandra Gursahai Cotton Mills Co. Ltd, ILR 44 All 565 : (AIR 1922 All 235)."
Section 12 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Babbar Sewing Machine Co vs Trilok Nath Mahajan on 7 August, 1978
3. There is no dispute that the appellant secured in I.A. 219 of 1983, an order under Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C. directing the respondent herein to produce into court five items of documents and despite a direction by court to the respondent to produce the documents called for, the documents were not produced on the ground that they were not available It is true that if the documents, the production of which was asked for by the appellant, were not available even a t the time when the court proceeded to pass the order directing the production, the respondent could have stated so. However, the failure of the respondent to bring it to the notice of the Court even then that the documents were not in his custody cannot be equated to contumacy on the part of the respondent or even be characterised as a wilful attempt to disregard the order of the Court, especially when there is no material available on record to show that the respondent in fact had the custody of those documents, but had deliberately and wilfully retained from producing them into court in utter disregard of direction of court. No doubt, the respondent, by means of an endorsement through his counsel, belatedly brought to the notice of the Court that the documents directed to be produced were not available. Merely from this circumstance, it cannot be readily assumed that the respondent, with the intention of disobeying and disregarding orders of Court, did not produce the documents directed to be produced. There is, therefore, no question of the respondent being guilty of contumacious conduct or a wilful attempt to disobey the direction of court It would be relevant in this connection to bear in mind the caution administered by the Supreme Court in Babbar Sewing Machine Co. v. Tirloknath Mahajan, , to the effect that an order under Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. striking out the defence should be worked with caution and should not be made unless there has been obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the defendant or a wilful attempt to disregard an order of court. Earlier, it has been seen how on the facts of this case, there is no evidence of contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent or a wilful attempt on his part to disobey orders of court. In view of this, in the present case, there is no justification for resorting to and exercising the drastic powers of Court under Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. to strike out the defence of the respondent in the suit, even on the assumption that the application filed by the appellant under Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. is maintainable.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
S.P.S.R. Subramania Ayyar vs C. Oomer Cotty Haji on 21 April, 1933
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order for the production of the documents was passed after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent and it even at the time of the passing of that order the respondent did not have the custody of the documents directed to be produced, that fact could have been brought to the notice of the court, which, however, was not done, but after the lapse of nearly five months after the order for production of the documents, an endorsement was made to the effect that the documents are not available and this clearly indicated contumacy on the part of the respondent or a wilful attempt to disregard the order of Court for production of documents justifying the striking out of the defence of the respondent in the suit. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application filed by the appellant under Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. was not maintainable, as there was no failure on the part of the respondent to a answer interrogatories or failure to comply with an order for discovery or inspection of documents and a mere failure to produce documents as directed by the Court would not fall within the scope of Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. Strong reliance in this connection was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent upon the decision in Sithamalli Subbayer v. Ramanathan Chettiar, (1924) 46 Mad LJ 350 : (AIR 1924 Mad 582) and Subramania Ayyar v. Bomer Cooty Haji, AIR 1933 Mad 870.
S.P.S.R. Subramania Ayyar vs C. Bomer Cooty Haji on 21 April, 1933
It is clear from the decision referred to above, that failure to produce documents directed to be produced by an order of Court passed under Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C. does not fall under Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. To similar effect is the decision in Subramania Iyer v. Bonier Cooty Haji, AIR 1933 Mad 870. In that case also, for failure to produce certain documents pursuant to orders passed under Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C. the suit was dismissed and in considering the correctness of this order, Pandalai J. observed as follows -
1