Raj Sarogi vs American Express (India) Pvt. ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 628 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. During the pendency of the suit filed by the appellant against the respondent an application (IA. 9823/2000) was filed by the appellant under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the CPC") praying that the defendant be called upon to make discovery on oath of documents in sub-para (i), (ii) and (iii) of para 3 of the application and produce the same in Court and on production the appellant be given inspection and copies thereof. The appellant/plaintiff in the application asserted that the documents were relevant for proper and effective adjudication of the questions involved in the suit and will reduce the controversy between the parties. The documents, production of which was sought, were described as follows :-

"(i) Photocopy of the lease deed dated 2nd August, 1996 between the defendant and Mrs. Kamla Vachani and Ms. Madhavi Vachani with respect to the property bearing No. S-51A, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.

(ii) Photocopy of the Supplementary Agreement dated 8th August, 1996 between the defendant and Mrs. Kamla Vachani and Ms. Madhavi Vachani relating to property bearing No. S-51A, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.

(iii) Photocopy of the assessment order of property tax dated 14th February, 2000 with respect to S-51 A, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi passed by MCD."

2. The application was opposed by the respondent on number of grounds.

3. The application came up for consideration before learned Single Judge on 28.3.2001 on which date, learned Single Judge proceeded to record the statement of the appellant, which is to the following effect :-

"I have been staying in E-5, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi from September, 1996 onwards."

4. After recording the aforementioned, statement, learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the application in question as well as two other applications by the following order :-

"IAs. 985/99, 9823/2000 and 12792/2000

In view of the statement made by the plaintiff, the application do not appear to be bonafide.

Dismissed."

5. This order is under challenge is this appeal. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.

6. The appellant filed the application under two separate provisions of law, namely, Rule 12 of Order 11 CPC for discovery of documents and Rule 14 of Order 11 CPC for production of documents. Rule 12 and Rule 14 of Order 11 CPC are independent of each other. The object of Rule 12 of the Code is two fold : (a) to secure as far as possible that all material documents are disclosed by putting the opposite party on oath as to the documents in his possession or power with consequent penalties attach to a false oath ; and (b) to put an end to what might otherwise led to a protracted enquiry as to the material documents actually in possession or under the control of the opposite party. As and when the application under Rule 12 of Order 11 CPC is filed seeking discovery of documents, the Court is required to exercise discretion, as envisaged in the said Rule, which does not alter the principle relating to the production of documents but gives the Court a discretion to refuse to direct discovery of documents when there is no reasonable prospects of its being of any user or to limit the nature and extent of the discovery. The discretion undoubtedly vested in the Court must be exercised judicially to further the primary object of the Rules for production and discovery of documents.

7. The impugned order on the face of it suggests that learned Single Judge did not consider the question that whether the discovery was or was not necessary at that stage of the suit or whether the documents, the production of which was sought were or were not relevant. Before directing discovery of documents, the Court is required to satisfy itself that whether the documents are relevant for the purpose of disposing of the suit or not. A party cannot be permitted to have a roving enquiry to extract information which may or may not be relevant. Learned Single Judge did not satisfy himself that whether or not the documents were relevant. Learned Single Judge appears to have been swayed merely by one reason that it was not a bona fide act on the part of the appellant in moving the application, which in our view, cannot be a sole ground on which such an application seeking discovery of documents be dismissed. Learned Single Judge was expected to apply his mind to the facts of the case and the averments made in the application. He was also expected to disclose his mind by stating in the order on what valid grounds the plaintiff/appellant would not be entitled to seek the direction, prayed for in the application. No reason is at all disclosed in the impugned order implying that the discretion has not been exercised properly with reference to the averments made in the application. We have gone through the contents of the application and are of the view that it is a fit case where the application deserves to be heard and decided afresh within the scope of the two different provisions of the Rules.

8. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside with direction that the application be decided afresh in accordance with law. Needless to add that while deciding the application afresh, it will be open for the respondents to urge all the points raised in their reply to oppose the prayer made by the appellant including the one, which were noticed by learned Single Judge in the impugned order.