MAHESH MATHURADAS CHANDAN Vs. MATHURADAS JADHAVJI CHANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision takes exception to the orders passed by the Court of Appeal upon applications marked Exs. 18 and 19 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1990.

(2.) THE petitioner is the son and he has instituted a suit against the respondent, his father, claiming an injunction that the latter be restrained from interfering with the conduct of business being carried on by him in the name and style of Chandan Chemical Products. It was petitioners contention that he was the sole and exclusive owner of the business though respondent was at times allowed to work therein but in a purely managerial capacity. The respondents stand was the exact opposite viz. that the business belonged to him exclusively though he was using the name of his son to run it. An interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner and that led to the respondent assailing the same by way of Misc. Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1990. In the course of a hearing on 20th March, 1990, the learned Additional District Judge hearing the appeal queried respondent as to:---

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner contents that Order XLI, Rule 27 does not enable the tendering of documents at any stage by either party. No explanation had been advanced by the respondent for keeping back documents which he sought to tender under Exs. 18 and 19 in the trial Court. Even though Rule 27 empowered the Appellate Court to require the production of any document so as to enable it to pronounce judgment, that could be done only after the documents had been first looked into and found to be necessary. Here, the documents were taken on record without the Appellate Court ruling upon the requirement aspect. In a sense, the criticism is justified. But the requirement of the Court can be inferred from the query addressed by it to the respondent What the learned Judge wanted to know was whether respondent had documents to show repayment of amounts towards loan borrowed in the name of the concern for running the business, and next, documents showing payment of rent of the premises in which the business was being run. This became necessary because of the stand taken by the rivals, both alleging that he was the sole and exclusive owner of the business - the other being there in a subordinate capacity either as a benamidar or as a manager. To resolve this conflict the Appellate Court felt it necessary to ascertain from the respondent whether he had documents on the two crucial questions posed by the said Court. It is true that the documents have been taken on record without scrutinising the requirement aspect thereof. But the first stage in relation to documents is always production. Relevance, veracity and credibility are the subsequent stages. The impugned order will be taken as restricted to the production stage only. The documents will be taken into consideration only if they satisfy the tests of relevance, veracity and credibility. On this subject the petitioner as also the respondent will state their rival submissions before the learned Judge. Subject to this clarification, the rule is discharged with costs being costs in the cause. Rule discharged.