GOODWILL INDIA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff had summoned file No. E/15 from defendant No. 2 alongwith other documents. Public Witness . 9, an assistant in the record room of the DDA brought the file in a sealed cover and claimed privilege. Affidavit of Mr. Jagmohan, Vice Chairman of the D.D.A., was filed. The relevant portion is :

(2.) The plaintiff filed an application (I. A. No. 1189/72) opposing privilege claim and prayed for cross examination of Mr. Jagmohan. This application was opposed by Defendant no. 2 who inter alia stated that the privilege claim is to be decided on the basis of affidavit on record. It appears that nobody pressed for the decision of this application because thereafter the plaintiff made application I. A. No. 515/73. The plaintiff while opposing the privilege claim submitted that the file in question has been seen by one Mr. Vishal Chand whose affidavit was annexed to the application. Prayer was also made to serve interrogatories on Mr. Jagmohan. This application was decided by Avadh Behari, J. on 25.9.73 who held that it was not necessary to call upon Mr. Jagmohan to answer interrogatories and that interest of justice could be served if Mr. Jag Mohan made a further affidavit in opposition to Vishal Chand's affidavit. The result was that Mr. Jagmohan swore an affidavit on 7.2.74.

(3.) During the course of arguments Mr. Keshav Dayal, counsel for defendant no. 2 stated that the claim of privilege made by Mr. Jagmohan by his first affidavit was U/S 123 as well as U/S 124 of Evidence Act. The phraseology used in the affidavit is that pri- vilege is claimed U/S 123 only. This is further clear by the last line where specifically Mr. Jagmohan stated that he was withholding permission U/S 123 of the Evidence Act. In other words Mr. Jagmohan was not at any time claiming privilege U/S 124 of Evidence Act and thus I have to decide the question U/S 123 only.