PANJWANI PACKAGING PVT. LTD. Vs. VIJAY PRAKASH GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order purported to have been passed in exercise of jurisdiction under O.39, R. 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the trial Court for the inspection of the applicant factory is under challenge in this revision application. Shri Polekar, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the non -applicant had brought a money suit against the applicant, to which the provisions of O.39, R. 7 CPC arc not applicable. These provisions apply to the injunction suits. According to Shri Polekar, under O.39, R. 7, O.26, R.9, or under O.16, R.18 of the CPC inspection cannot be granted in order to permit a party to collect the evidence against the opposite party. Shri Polekar relied on the rulings reported in The Institution of Engineers and another v. Bishnu Pada Bag and another (AIR 1978 Cal. 296). Basant Kumar Swain v. Kumar Parida and others (AIR 1989 Orissa, 118) and Chimanlal Chhaldas Patel v. Lilachad Veniram Panchal & Ors. (AIR 1972 Guj.26). Shri Polekar also submitted that if the inspection is permitted it will cause failure of justice and serious prejudice to 'he applicant as his business secrets would be made known to the non -applicant, who is competitor. On the other hand Shri K.L.Goyal the learned counsel for the non -applicant submitts that the case was clearly coverded under O.39, R. 7 of the CPC. He submitted that no collection of evidence was involved in the case. He further submitted that there is no question of any failure of justice and the case did not fall within the scope of S. 115 of the C.P.C.

(2.) IN the M.P. Amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, a proviso is added to S. 115. There is a prohibition against varying or reversing any order except when the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings or the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irrepairable injury to the party against whom it was made. The case does not fall in either of the exceptions to the proviso. The suit obviously would not be finally disposed of by variation or reversal of the impugned order and no failure of justice or irrepairable injury would be occasioned if the order is allowed to stand. The contention that business secrets of the applicant would be known to the other side, cannot be accepted. A factory is a place where several persons work and it is inspected by several inspectors of various departments. It cannot be said that a mere inspection by the opposite party would expose the applicant to the risk of disclosure of business secrets. The revision application has, therefore, no force. It is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.