SUPRIYO BOSE Vs. SUBROTO BOSE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the orders dated May 11, 2010 and August 12, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ninth Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.77 of 1986. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 instituted the Title Suit No.77 of 1986 before the learned Assistant District Judge, Ninth Court, Alipore against the defendant no.1/petitioner herein and the defendant no.2/opposite party herein for partition, accounts and other reliefs. That suit is still pending at the stage of discovery, inspection, etc. In that suit, the defendant no.1 appeared and filed a written statement. He filed also a counter-claim against the plaintiff and in support of his contention he has referred to a number of documents. The plaintiff/opposite parties wanted to inspect those documents in order to prepare a written statement against the counter-claim. Some of those documents were produced and copies were supplied. But, some other documents were not produced by the defendant no.1/petitioner herein on the ground that those documents are otherwise either confidential or privileged and so copy of those documents should not be handed over to the plaintiff. By the first order dated May 11, 2010, the learned Trial Judge directed the defendant no.1 to supply the plaintiff with copy of all the necessary documents within June 11, 2010 and by the second order dated August 12, 2010, the learned Trial Judge has directed the defendant no.1 to comply with the order dated May 11, 2010 within seven days; otherwise the learned Court will strike out his pleading in written statement which includes counter-claim and defence. Being aggrieved by such orders, the defendant no.1 has come up with this application. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned orders can be sustained.

(2.) Upon hearing the learned Advocate for both the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the said partition suit was filed in the year 1986 and is still pending at the stage of discovery, inspection, etc. Even the Court was not able to pass any preliminary decree over the suit property. In support of the counter-claim raised by the defendant no.1, he has relied on several documents as noted in his counter-claim, in all 46 documents. But, on being directed, the defendant no.1 produced copy of some documents on February 9, 2010 as appearing in page nos.52, 53 and 54 as annexure "ËœD' to the application. Yet, the plaintiff demanded the other 23 documents upon which he (defendant no.1) places reliance and the defendant no.1 is withholding those documents on the ground that those are either confidential or privileged.

(3.) During argument, Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1/petitioner, submits that his client could not produce those documents because his clients may not rely on these documents ultimately. Such submission of Mr. Basu, I hold, is not convincing at all because the petitioner has mentioned those documents in support of his counter-claim. The documents which described as confidential or privileged and which the plaintiff demanded, are appearing at page no.35 to 37 of the application. These documents, I find, are such as papers relating to High Court Case No.1124 of 1996, commercial transactions, purchase deeds, bank account, income tax return, some receipts, some papers to show payment of rents by the tenants, several vouchers for repairs, tax clearance certificate, etc., in all 23 items. Mr. Basu has also contended that some are Court papers and so the plaintiff may take certified copy of those papers. Such direction cannot also be given unless and until the plaintiff is a party to those Court proceedings. On the basis of such documents, the defendant no.1 has claimed a counter-claim and so in order to prepare a written statement, the plaintiff may certainly pray for copy of those documents for inspection. Since, the defendant no.1 has disclosed his defence by describing those documents in the written statement and the counter-claim, such papers cannot be termed as otherwise confidential or privileged documents. If the defendant no.1 does not comply with such directions, the learned Trial Judge is within his competence to pass stringent orders including striking out defence of the defendant no.1.