SHARVAN KUMAR Vs. SUMEET KUMAR GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 30.3.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chandigarh allowing the application of the plaintiff -respondent directing the defendant -petitioner to produce the original registration certificate of scooter make Priya No. HYQ -5986, Car No. HR -07 -5986 and also cash book, ledger book and other accounts relating to the period w.e.f . 28.7.1998 to 21.6.1999. The defendant -petitioner has filed this revision petition invoking the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code').

(2.) IN order to put the whole controversy in its proper perspective and to focus on the legal issues involved, necessary facts may first be noticed. Plaintiff -respondent filed Civil Suit No. 139 dated 2.12,1999 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 21,60,000/ -. The suit has been filed under Order XXXVII of the Code on the basis of family settlements dated 2.8.1998 and 21 -23.8.1999 and cheque No. 786212 dated 31.7.1999. Defendant -petitioner was granted leave to contest on 5.1.2000 by the Civil Judge on the condition of furnishing of indemnity bonds to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs with one surety. The case of the plaintiff -respondent set up in the plaint is that family settlement has been arrived at between the parties who are kith and kin and who had joint business. Plaintiff -respondent filed an application on 4.3.2002 seeking direction to the defendant -petitioner for production of various documents and record after the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant -petitioner. The Civil Judge allowed the application on the ground that various documents and record are relevant for proper adjudication of the issues. The operative part of the order recorded by the Civil Judge on 30.3.2002 reads as under: -

(3.) MR . Chetan Mittal, learned counsel for the plaintiff -respondent, on the other hand, has taken the stand that once the family settlement in pursuance to agreement dated 2.8.1998 and 21/23.6.1999 has been given effect to by issuing cheque and transferring the vehicles in accordance with the terms thereof, then it cannot be doubted that family settlement has not taken place. He has pointed out that there is no dispute with regard to execution of the family settlement between the parties. According to the learned counsel, the Civil Judge has not ordered production of whole accounts or all documents but has ordered only the accounts for the relevant period i.e. 28.7.1998 to 23.6.1999. Therefore, there is no scope for a roving enquiry as has been suggested in the judgment of Delhi High Court in Punj Star Industries case (supra). Therefore, he has prayed that the revision petition does not deserve to be accepted.