ABDUL RAHIMAN Vs. MAHENDRA AJANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions are filed by the 1st respondent in I.A. Nos. 125 and 123 of 1983 in O.S. No. 438 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry. The revision petitioner is the defendant in this suit. The plaintiff in the suit as also defendants 2 to 4 are the respondents in these civil revision petitions. The said I.A. Nos. 125 and 123 of 1983 were filed by the plaintiff in the suit against the revision petitioner (1st defendant) and respondents 2 to 4 (defendants 2 to 4 in the suit). The said interlocutory applications were filed by the plaintiff in the suit under O.16 R.14 read with S.151 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying that the court may be pleased to summon the Nedungadi Bank, Cannanore and the Canara Bank, Cannanore to cause production of the documents mentioned in the affidavit. O.S. 438 of 1982 was filed by the 1st respondent herein stating that the proprietory concern "ARES SPICES" owned by the 1st defendant, revision petitioner herein, along with other establishments belonging to defendants 2 to 4 utilised the plaintiff's services as commission agent and obtained bulk orders through him. The suit was filed to recover a sum of Rs. 56,238/- being the commission due from the revision petitioner for the turn-over of the business solicited by the plaintiff. After the filing of the suit and even before the notices were served on the defendants, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 125 of 1983 and I. A. No. 123 of 1983 under O.16 R.14 of the Civil Procedure Code to summon Nedungadi Bank, Cannanore and Canara Bank, Cannanore to produce the accounts and other documents relating to the accounts of the petitioner. The plaintiff alleged certain corrupt practices. The petitions were filed on 12-1-1983. The court below heard the plaintiff's counsel and passed an order in both the interlocutory applications. The court adverted to the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant have committed corrupt practice and that the documents mentioned in the affidavit are quite essential for proving the case of the plaintiff and that if no emergent summons is issued, defendants will be able to influence the bank to conceal these documents. Placing reliance on the decision reported in Khaje Khanavar Khadarkkan Hussain Khan and another v. Siddavanahalli Nijalingappa and another ( AIR 1969 SC 1034 ) the court observed:

(2.) The 1st defendant has filed the revision petitions from the aforesaid orders passed by the court below. On facts, the revision petitioner disputes the claim and the basis of the claim put forward by the plaintiff in the suit. Counsel for the revision petitioner Mr. M. A. Manhu attacked the order of the court below as totally without jurisdiction. Counsel contended that the court below misconstrued O.16 R.14 of the Civil Procedure Code and has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. It is common ground that at the time when the interim applications were made before the court below, even summons were not served on the defendants. Counsel contends that the provisions of O.16 R.14 are not attracted to such cases. The court below has also exercised the jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. The orders passed by the courts below if allowed to stand would occasion failure of justice and have also caused irreparable injury to the revision petitioner. On these premises the orders are sought to be set aside. On the other hand, the counsel for the plaintiff, Ist respondent, contends that the court below had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, and places reliance on the provisions of O.16 R.14 of the Civil Procedure Code (only). According to counsel, even if it is not so, the impugned order will not be "a case decided" so as to enable this court to exercise revisional jurisdiction. It is also contended that there is no error of jurisdiction and that by the impugned order, there is no failure of justice nor will irreparable injury be caused to the revision petitioner.

(3.) Since the entire controversy centres round the scope of O.16 R.14 of the Civil Procedure Code it is useful to extract the said provisions: