ANDHRA BANK LTD Vs. N V NARENDRANATH BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatnam in I.A. No. 1699 of 1954 directing the petitioner herein to give inspection of the documents referred to in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed by the respondents in support of their application. Sri P. Somasundaram on behalf of the petitioner raised two objections, namely, (i) that the inspection ought not to have been ordered under Order 11, rule 18 (2), Civil Procedure Code, before the respondents filed their written statements, and (ii) that the Subordinate Judge did not address his mind to the question whether the respondents were entitled to inspection of these documents.

(2.) For the purpose of appreciating his contentions, I shall set out a few relevant facts. The petitioner Bank is the Andhra Bank, Ltd., Masulipatnam and it filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,24,044-14-0 due on a promissory note executed by the respondents and others. In the lawyer's notice, dated 18th September, 1954, which preceded the suit, the Bank demanded the repayment of the amounts due under two heads. It was stated therein that if the two loan amounts were not paid within a week after the receipt of this notice, the Bank would enforce the mortgage created by deposit of title-deeds and recover the amounts from the mortgaged properties as also personally. No reply having been received, the petitioner Bank filed the suit for enforcement of the promissory note, dated 17th October, 1951. The claim based on the mortgage has been given up in this suit conceded by Sri P. Somasundaram, the Advocate for the respondents by his letter, dated 25th November, 1954, wrote to the General Secretary of the bank that he should be permitted to inspect the relevant accounts and documents at the bank premises in order that his clients might decide after inspection "either to defend the suit or to submit to a decree and thus shorten the life of the suit which in ordinary course would cover many months or years."

(3.) As the bank did not give inspection of the documents, the respondents filed I.A. No. 1699 of 1954 even before filing the written statement. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the application that the suit promissory note was a collateral security and was enforceable only if and when the assets of the 1st defendant company were insufficient to meet the amount due to the bank. It was further stated that the letters addressed by the bank to Sri K. Subba Rao Naidu, the Managing Director of the Company of Managing Agents of the ist defendant company could not be found and so all the copies of the letters maintained by the bank might be given inspection of. In paragraph 6, the respondents stated the several documents in respect of which they required inspection. The bank opposed the application on the ground that inspection ought not to be directed before the defendants filed their written statement, that the object of the application was only to fish out information, that the documents were not relevant and that inspection was not necessary either for disposing of the suit fairly or for avoiding costs. The Subordinate Judge upheld the claim of the respondents for inspection on the ground that