VIRENDRA SINGH BHANDARI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application challenging the order dated 24.7.92 passed by the trial Court dismissing an application under Or. 11 R. 12 C.P.C. Shri Garg submits that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapoor (AIR 1972 SC 2379). According to Shri Garg, party seeking discovery can come to know of specific document only when the other side files the affidavit of document in reply to the order of discovery. It is also not necessary that the document sought to be recovered should be admissible in evidence. It is sufficient if the documents would be relevant for the purpose of throwing light on the matter in controversy Shri Dagaonkar on the other hand contends that the application itself was vague and general and or such application, discovery cannot be ordered.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for both the sides and having perused the impugned order, I find that the learned trial Judge has not applied a proper test in deciding the application under O. 11 R. 12 C.P.C. The order itself is a laconic order. The order, therefore, deserves to be set aside and is hereby set -aside. The trial Court is directed to decide the application under O. 11 R. 12 C.P.C. afresh after hearing both the parties in the light of observations made in para 6 of the decision in M.L. Sethi's case (supra). The trial Court is expected to pass a speaking order though such an order may not be very lengthy order. Parties to bear their own costs. With these observations this revision stands disposed off. AIR 1972 SC 2379 followed.