The single judge bench of the Tripura High Court held that discovery of documents can be objected to on the grounds of legal or professional privilege; that they may tend to criminate a party or expose him to forfeiture; that they are protected by public policy; that they are not in the sole possession of the party; that they solely relate to the case of the party; that they are in the possession of the party as an agent or a representative of another; and that they disclose evidence of party's own case,
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner had filed the case under Section 15(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for obtaining a decree of specific performance of a contract, entered in between the plaintiff and the defendant. Furthermore, the Petitioner filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC for a direction upon the defendant to furnish the details of his tenant, along with the rent receipt and other documents relating to rent. However, the learned civil court declined the prayer and the Plaintiff approached the present court under Article 227 of the constitution of India.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the learned trial court took an erroneous approach since the defendant is in possession of the documents, including rent receipts, that are pertinent to the principal issue in the title dispute. It is not possible to dispute the discovery of these documents on the grounds of privilege, scandal, or malice.
The Petitioner relied upon the judgments titled Naveen Jindal Vs M/S Zee Media Corporation Ltd. & Anr., and M. L. Sethi vs R.P. Kapur.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that Order XI deals with the production of documents and the answering of questions in the form of an affidavit in relation to discovery and inspection through interrogatories. These provisions aim to expedite the case during the initial stage before the trial, whereas the subsequent rules of evidence are designed to uncover the truth during the trial phase or give evidence.
It was noted that discovery of documents may be challenged on the following grounds: legal or professional privilege; the possibility that the documents could be used against the party or result in their forfeiture; public policy protection; the fact that the documents are not the party's exclusive property; the fact that they only pertain to the party's case; the fact that the party is in possession of the documents as an agent or representative of another; and the fact that the documents reveal evidence relevant to the party's own case.
It was furthermore noted that the plaintiff in the present case appears to seek the production of documents that relate to a person who is not a party to the suit, as a means to create evidence in his support which he is supposed to prove during trial on the issue in controversy.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the trial court had rightly appreciated the object and purpose of interrogatories under Order XI and rightly refused to allow the prayer for the production of such a document by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the petition.
Case title: Sri Tapash Banik Vs Sri Nityaranjan Banik
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Case No.: CRP No.8 of 2024
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Ratan Datta, Advocate, Mr. Sourav Debnath, Advocate.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source : https://undark.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/roomy.jpg
