NARENDRAKUMAR HIRALAL PAREKH Vs. OCEAN FOOD PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By preferring present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, following prayer has been made by the present petitioner:

(2.) Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

(3.) It was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that in the suit, after framing issue , an application Exh. 26 for discovery of documents under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") was moved by the present petitioner seeking discovery and production of certain documents such as the GR receipts, Bills, details of cheque and entries as recorded in the books of accounts etc, which are in possession of the defendants. It was further submitted that however, documents were direct bearing on the central question involved in the suit and were relevant in light of the issues framed by the court, the court below has committed grave error in rejecting an application vide order dtd. 16/6/2017. It was further submitted that without considering the relevance of the documents as sought for by the petitioner in the application for discovery, court below has wrongly rejected the application. It was further submitted that goods receipts, entries in the books of accounts and bills for transport charges raised by the defendant no.1 and payments made by original defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 was relates to the issues framed by the court and question involved in the suit. It was further submitted that material error was committed by the court below in appreciating that the documents as sought for by the plaintiff directly and materially relates to issue no.3 framed by the court below. That, observations of the court below while rejecting the application that plaintiff has not produced documents such as books of account etc, and therefore, plaintiff can not insist of the production of books of account and other documents from the defendant is clearly contrary to the facts of the case and under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the petitioner to allow this petition as well as application Ex. 26 preferred by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Shri M. L. Sethi versus Shri R. P. Kapur, reported in (1972) 2 SCC 427 and in case of Rajkoshore Prasad and others versus The State of Orissa and others, reported in1979 SCC OnLine Ori. 35 .