M D SHAH PROF Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 9/12/1980 after hearing the learned Advocate General who appeared on behalf of Indian Airlines and the learned Advocate who appeared for the other side we made an order directing Indian Airlines to produce in this Court documents which we specified in that order. We further directed that the said documents shall be pro- duced in this Court on or before 26/12/1980 Indian Airlines has not complied with that order and has filed Civil Application No. 3848 of 1980 in which it prays that this Court should decide certain preliminary questions first and then direct Indian Airlines to produce the documents if it is found necessary.

(2.) The learned Advocate General who appeared on behalf of Indian Airlines on 9/12/1980 did not raise the contention which Indian Airlines now seeks to raise. If it was really necessary that certain pre- liminary issues be decided first before Indian Airlines is called upon to produce the documents specified in that order then certainly he would have raised that contention. We therefore find that Indian Airlines has made the present application only for the purpose of delaying the procee- dings. They appear to be playing a game of hide-and-seek. They try to take shelter under totally untenable contentions which they did not raise at a proper stage and which they raise at a later stage in order to shield themselves against exposure. We cannot allow Indian Airlines to play such a game.

(3.) It may be stated that the documents of which production is sought from Indian Airlines are not documents of which the original petitioner seeks discovery. They are the documents which have been referred to or relied upon in the long affidavit-in-reply filed by Indian Airlines. Since it relies upon its affidavit in order to substantiate its case then it is bound to produce in this Court for inspection all the documents which it has referred to or relied upon in its affidavit-in-reply. In cannot escape that obligation and try to contend that certain preliminary issues must be decided first. What did not strike the wisdom of the learned Advocate General on 9/12/1980 appears to have struck the wisdom of Indian Airlines now. This shows the related and frantic effort on the part of Indian Airlines to hide the facts. This cannot be allowed to be done. We therefore reject Civil Application No. 3848 of 1980.