ASHREDDY Vs. VENKATREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In O.S. No. 12/1 of 1954-1955 on the file of the Subordi- Judge, Gulbarga, the appellant herein was the plaintiff and he had prayed for a decree for possession of the plaint-scheduled land and for certain declarations against four defendants. The 3rd and 4th defendants filed a written statement admitting the claim. On 19th July, 1954, the second defendant put in appearance and asked for an opportunity to file his written statement. The case dragged on till 31st August, 1954, on which date the second defendant filed an application stating that the plaintiff had filed certain documents along with plaint but he had not filed the list of the documents as required by Order 7, rule 14, Civil Procedure Code, in the result of which he (defendant No. 2) was unable to file his written statement; therefore, the plaintiff be directed under Order 2, rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, to make discovery of the documents which he intended to rely upon in the suit. No order was passed on this application and the applicant was directed to file his written statement. The attention of the Court was invited to the application for discovery of documents on 21st October, 1954 and the Court directed the advocate for the plain tiff " to clarify the same ". On 13th November, 1954, the plaintiff was again directed " to clarify as required and as ordered in the previous order sheet".

(2.) A further opportunity was given to the plaintiff on 29th November, 1954, to clarify as ordered before. At long last the plaintiff filed his counter on 5th January, 1955, stating that the documents on which he intended to rely had already been filed with the plaint and that no other documents were in his possession for production for purposes of the suit. The Court without applying its mind as to the desirability or otherwise of the discovery of the documents in view of the counter filed by the plaintiff ordered and gave time for filing an affidavit in support of the counter. On 15th January, 1955, the Subordinate Judge passed the following order:

(3.) The suggested application having been filed on 17th January, 1955, the Subordinate Judge purporting to act under Order 11, rule 21, dismissed the suit without costs. It is against this order the plaintiff has preferred has the present miscellaneous appeal under rule 1 (f) of Order 43, Civil Procedure Code.