SUSHIL RANI Vs. ATTAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 17.05.2004, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff to submit the accounts and bahis entries for the inspection of the Court was declined.

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,38,806/ - on the basis of bahi entries inclusive of interest thereon. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff has attached a photocopy of the bahi entries duly signed by the plaintiff as true copies thereof. On an objection being raised by the defendants that original bahi entries have not been produced, the plaintiff moved an application for submitting the bahi entries, which has since been declined by the learned trial Court

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has substantively complied with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 17 of the Code at the time of filing of the plaint. The plaintiff has sought to produce original copies of the bahi entries soon after the objection was raised by the defendant in his written statement. It is contended that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 17 of the Code are the rules of procedure and such provisions are directory. Reliance is placed upon "Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar and others, : 2006(1) ACJ 310 (S.C.) : 2006(1) CCC 290 (S.C.) : 2006(1) SCC 46" and "Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra and others v. Parmod Gupta and others, : 2003(3) SCC 272 : AIR 2003 SC 2588". In Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra's case (supra), it has been held to the following effect: -