SEVEENA ENTERPRISES Vs. KALATEX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.14.24,352/- along with interest on account of balance payment due to it from the defendants on account of goods supplied by the plaintiff. THE case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the defendants have admitted the receipt of goods supplied to them and the invoices as well as the challans issued by the plaintiff during the admission/denial of the documents. It is also not disputed between the parties that part payments were made by the defendants from time to time to the plaintiff for the goods supplied to them. THE plaintiff submits that the balance confirmation was also issued by the defendants on 21.08.1998 confirming a credit balance of Rs.21,75,142/- standing in their books of accounts as on 31.03.1998. THE confirmation in this regard has been placed on record by the plaintiff. It is also stated in the plaint that certain goods were returned by the defendants and as per the debit and credit notes exchanged between the parties, the plaintiff was entitled to receive the said amount, i.e., Rs.14,24,352/- along with interest from the defendants.

(2.) THE contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants have taken the false stand in the written statement in order to delay the disposal of the suit. THE documents discovered from the defendants by the plaintiff would establish the case of the plaintiff relating to the dispute in question. THE contention of Mr Poddar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, is that the balance sheet for the year ending on 31.03.2005, the defendants have admitted under the head of "sundry creditors" that a sum of Rs.14,23,892/- was due on 31.03.2004 as well as on 31.03.2005. Mr Poddar further submits that the said balance sheet had been submitted by the defendants along with their return with the Additional CIT/J, Range 23, New Delhi, on 30.08.2005 vide Form No.2332001302 and also with the Sales Tax Department and banks. According to him, no doubt, these documents are in public domain. However, the said documents, being the old record, filed by the defendants may not be traceable. He submits that since the said documents admittedly are available with the defendants, therefore, the plaintiff in order to demolish the case of the defendants filed an application, being I.A. No.7451/2011, seeking discovery of the said documents on oath by the defendants. He further submitted that the defendants had also filed a similar application against the plaintiff for discovery of the balance sheet of the plaintiff wherein the amount as recoverable from the defendants is reflected, being I.A. No.12669/2011. Both the applications were listed before Joint Registrar on 20.09.2011 and by order dated 26.09.2011, the same have been dismissed merely on the ground that the same are not necessary to adjudicate the disputes between the parties as the documents can be proved by production of certified copies. Against the said order, the plaintiff has filed the present Chamber appeal under Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 seeking setting aside of the order dated 26.09.2011 in I.A. No.7451/2011 filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The object of Rule 12 of Order XI CPC has two requirements: (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 its possession or power; (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 side. In the present case, the learned counsel for the defendants has not disputed the fact the copies of the documents are available with the defendant. There is no dispute that the defendants have filed balance sheet in various public offices like Income Tax and Sales Tax departments. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the certified copies cannot be obtained from these departments in view of the existing law as there is provision to give certified copies of the documents and the same may not be available due to being old record. I am of the view that there is a force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that when the said record is available with the defendant and as per the provision of Order XI Rule 12 CPC, why the plaintiff could not discover the said documents from the defendants in order to expedite the suit proceedings which are more than eleven years old. No doubt, even by discovering these documents, the plaintiff has to prove the said documents in accordance with law. But as far as the discovery of documents is concerned, if the same are available with the defendants and there is no provision for certified copies and the record may not be available due to being old record, it would be appropriate to discover the said documents from the defendants rather to further delay the matter.