JANAKIBALLAV PATNAIK Vs. BENNETT COLEMAN AND CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petition is for discovery of documents under O.11, R.12 and the second petition is for production of the same documents under O.11, R.14 of the Civil P. C. ('Code' for short). Therefore both the petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) It is stated by the plaintiff that in order to prove his case for damages against the defendants for the libellous publications in the Illustrated Weekly of India, it is necessary that some documents which are relevant and are within the possession and power of defendants 1 to 3 should not only be given discovery, but should also be produced in Court in accordance with law.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 3 have opposed the petitions and in their counters, they have stated that the documents are their evidence which they will adduce at the time of hearing. They do not tend to support the plaintiff's case. Therefore, the disclosure of the documents will amount to disclosure of their evidence, in which case the plaintiff will be in a position to approach the defence witnesses in order to gain over them. They cannot also be forced to disclose their sources of information for publication of the offending articles. No prejudice will, therefore, be caused to the plaintiff, if the documents are neither given discovery nor produced in Court.