LAJPAT RAI Vs. TEJ BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115, Civil P. C. , has been filed fay the defendants in a suit which is pending in the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi. The plaintiff and the five defendants entered into a partnership on certain terras on 17-10-1950. The business of partnership was to be that of builders and contractors. The partnership took three contracts for execution from the Government before 31-8-1952 On this date, namely, 31-8-1952 the plaintiff Tej Bhan executed an agreement retiring from the partnership and according to this document he went through the accounts and received about Rs. 700/- in final settlement of the same. The plaintiff filed the present suit on 28-1-1954 seeking a declaration that the document of 31-8-1952 is void as brought about by the defendants by undue influence, pressure and coercion and sought its cancellation; He also sought relief of declaration that the credit and debit items and payment of Rs. 783/9/- mentioned in the document were neither owned nor received by him as no accounts had been gone into between the parties on that day. This suit is contested by the defendants. On 25-11-1954 the trial Court framed the following issues:

(2.) NOW, it cannot be, doubted that in certain circumstances it may be necessary to afford facilities to a party to the suit to prove his case or to demolish his opponent's case by allowing him to have access to the documents in the possession or in the power of the opponent and the provisions of Order 11, Rr. 12 to 20, have been enacted to give the necessary power to Courts. A party is entitled to claim inspection of documents mentioned in the opponent's pleadings (vide order 11, Rule 15), but if the opponent refuses to comply With this notice then the Court may fix time and place for inspection of the same provided it is of the opinion that the order is necessary for fair disposal of the suit for saving costs of litigation (vide Order 11, Rule 18 (2) ). As for the documents that are not mentioned in the pleadings a party may apply under Order 11, rule 12 or Order 11, Rule 18 (2), Civil P. C. , but the application cannot be granted unless the court is of the opinion that the discovery or inspection is necessary for fair disposal of the suit or for saving costs. The Court may defer an order under Order 11, Rule 12, Civil P. C. , if it is satisfied that such discovery is not necessary at that stage of the suit. If a party from whom discovery or inspection, is sought objects to the same, the determination of any issue or question in dispute or for any other reason it is desirable to do so till that issue or question is decided (vide Order ll, Rule 20 ).

(3.) THEREFORE, it is clear that the intention of the legislature in enacting these provisions of law is to empower Courts to require a party's adversary to give discovery or inspection of certain documents if such an order is considered necessary in the interests of fair disposal of the suit or to reduce litigation expenses. The primary object of these provisions is to save costs and to assist courts in the administration of justice. It necessarily follows that the Court concerned must judicially exercise its discretion keeping the object of these provisions of law in view. An order granting discovery and inspection may in some cases result-in serious prejudice and injury to the party that has to comply with it and, therefore, it is necessary that the Court should apply its mind carefully before making the order. It is not the intention of the legislature that such an order should be made as a matter of routine and as one of no serious consequence. The Courts, when moved under these provisions of law, must first decide whether the documents of which discovery or inspection is sought relate to any question in the suit and then decide if it is necessary to grant the application at that stage of the suit in the interests of its fair disposal or to save litigation expenses. The discretion vested in Courts must be exercised judicially to further the primary object of these provisions and care must be taken that they are not used with an ulterior motive. Obviously, the decision rests on the circumstances of each case and it is not possible to lay any hard and fast rule in this matter.