NALINI RANJAN BOSE Vs. MARTIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the plaintiff for an order that the defendants do file a further and better affidavit of documents.

(2.) THE suit is for damages for breach of a contract for supply of cement by the defendants to the plaintiff. The defence, so far as is relevant for the present application is first that there was no contract between the parties. The second defence is that even if there was such a contract, cement being a controlled article the defendants were liable under the Control Order to supply cement to public bodies before supplying the plaintiff who was a private consumer and that it had not sufficient stock of cement to 'supply the plaintiff' after it had supplied the public bodies.

(3.) MR . Mitter relied on Order 11, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is in the following terms: 'Where the party from whom discovery of any kind or inspection is sought objects to the same, or any part thereof, the Court may, if satisfied that the right to the discovery or inspection sought depends on the determination of any issue or question in dispute in the suit, or that for any other reason it is desirable that any issue or question in dispute in the suit should be determined before deciding upon the right to the discovery or inspection, order that such issue or question be determined first, and reserve the question as to the discovery or inspection.' This rule is identical in terms with Order 31, Rule 20 of the Rules of the Supreme Court in England.