NAMITA CHAKRABORTY Vs. SWAPAN BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in Title Suit No.18 of 2015 pending before the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), 1st Court, Alipore has preferred this revisional application being aggrieved by an order dated August 16, 2019 directing the defendants to produce the following documents: "

(2.) It is the contention of the defendants that these documents were already in the list of documents mentioned in the plaint by the plaintiff when the suit was instituted.

(3.) It is further stated that it was not the case of the plaintiff, that after the dissolution of the partnership firm between Swapna Chakraborty and the plaintiff and after the death of Swapna Chakraborty, who became a sole proprietor, the defendants had stepped into the shoes of Swapna Chakraborty insofar as the business was concerned and was running the proprietorship firm after the death of Swapna Chakraborty. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that the documents and the books of accounts claimed to be produced by the defendants on an application under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure were in the custody of the defendants. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate further submits that no where either in the probate proceeding or in the suit did the plaintiff claim that the defendants/plaintiff had inherited the partnership/proprietorship business of late Swapna Chakraborty. He submitted that the defendants were the beneficiaries under a Will and the assets of late Swapna Chakraborty, were bequeathed to her and probate was granted. The plaintiff intervened in the probate proceeding and claimed an amount of Rs.11,31,211.90 from the estate of late Swapna Chakraborty on account of unsettled account of a prior partnership. By an order of this Hon'ble Court, the said amount was secured. It is thus contended that the learned Court below although recorded the case of the defendants that the defendants were not in custody of the documents, passed the impugned order on the ground that there was substance in the contention of the plaintiff, in view of the fact that the defendants did not allege that the plaintiffs had taken away all the documents.