DURGA PROSAD SARAOGI Vs. MANICK CHAND SARAOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point I have now been called upon to decide is : Should I or should I not, of my own motion, make an order upon the plaintiffs under section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code for discovery of documents and the like.

(2.) THE point arises in the following circumstances: on November 20, 1964, I rejected the defendant's petition dated November 7, 1964, (moved by his learned counsel, Mr. Banerjee), calling upon the plaintiffs to file a further and better affidavit of documents. So I did on the ground of the averments contained therein having been vague to a degree. At the same time, I felt that it might be a fit case where the Court should give appropriate directions suo molu under section 30 ibid. And I expressed myself so. Thereupon Mr. Kar, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted that in a suit inter parties no court could make an order suo motu and chat he had come that day only to meet the defendant's petition rejected by me, not the sort of order I was considering about. The former submission did not hold me. The latter one did. On the former submission, I observed:

(3.) THIS is how the matter has come up before me. And I have had the assistance I was looking forward to, of Mr. Kar. and Mr. Banerjee, to both of whom I express my indebtedness.