INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY INDORE Vs. SATYAPAL ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of order which has been passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Indore in the matter of Civil O.S. 89-A/89. The said suit was filed by Shri Satyapal Anand for a decree against the present petitioner, along with Resp. 2-Indore Motor Parts Dealers Association-co-plaintiff in the said suit. As application in view of provisions of Order 11, Rule 12 r/w 151, CPC seeking discovery was filed by Resp. No. 1.- Satyapal Anand on 4-2-91 and by that application the discovery was sought in view of O. 11, R. 12. On 4-2-91 the learned trial Court rejected that application. Resp. 1 challenged that order by presenting Civil Revision No. 42/92. Said revision petition was heard and decided by this High Court by its order dt. 1-2-95 and by virtue of that order the present petitioner-Indore Development Authority was directed to make discovery on or before 3-3-95. It was also made clear that failing to comply with the said directions of making the discovery the present petitioner - I.D.A. was to face legal consequences.

(2.) Thereafter the matter was dealt with by the trial Court on 17-1-96 after giving many opportunities to present petitioner- I.D.A. from 3-3-95 to 17-1-96. The trial Court held that the present petitioner I.D.A. did not make the discovery as directed by the High Court and sought by the plaintiff-Satyapal Anand and, therefore, the trial Court passed the order and directed that the defence of I.D.A. stood struck off in view of provisions of O. 11, R. 21. On 11-3-96 present respondent No. 1, plaintiff Satyapal Anand submitted present application in view of provisions of O. 11, R. 14 for production of such documents as were then known to the plaintiff and mentioned in the list annexed to said application marked by letter 'A'. On 13-4-96 after hearing the parties learned trial Court directed I.D.A. the present petitioner to produce all the documents as per list - 'A' filed by Satyapal Anand by 13-5-96. On 13-5-96 no documents were filed by I.D.A. and it sought time which was allowed till 5-7-96. Again on 5-7-96 no documents were filed. It appears from the record that the hearing was adjourned to 17-7-96 but even on that date also I.D.A. did not file those documents.

(3.) On 12-8-96 again those documents were not filed by IDA, however, further time was prayed. Trial Court granted further time as last opportunity till 29-8-96. On 29-8-96 no documents were produced, again time was prayed for and it was granted by the trial Court. It was repeated on 13-9-96 and trial Court granted further time till 30-9-96. On 30-9-96 again no documents were produced and further time was granted. Thereafter on 29-10-96, no documents were produced and again time was sought which was granted by the trial Court by saddling I.D.A. with cost of Rs. 100/-. On 18-11-96 again those documents were not produced by I.D.A. and even cost was not paid. On 16-12-96 those documents were not produced and again time was sought by I.D.A. which was granted by the trial Court by saddling I.D.A. with further cost of Rs. 100/- which was to be paid to the plaintiff. On 16-12-96 the documents were not produced and time was again sought and granted on payment of cost of Rupees 100/-. On 24-1-97 the documents were not produced nor the cost of Rs. 100/- + Rupees 100/- + Rs. 200/- was paid by I.D.A. to respondent No. 1, plaintiff, Satyapal Anand.