SANT RAM Vs. M/S AMAR FLOUR MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of Sub Judge, whereby he declined the application for permission to inspect the cash books and the ledger books of the petitioner firm for the financial years 1980-81, 1981-82, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and April, 1987 to September, 1987 as well as the statement of account showing the income in the years referred to above.

(2.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioner for permission to inspect the above said accounts books as well as the statement of account of income, inter alia, contending that it would be helpful for just and proper adjudication of the ejectment proceedings taken out by the petitioner against the respondents. The trial Court observed that the case was received on remand, in order to remove the technical objection with regard to impleading of partners of the petitioner firm as parties. It was observed that the applicant contended during arguments that he wants to inspect the accounts books of the petitioner firm just to see if the petitioner firm had made the entries regarding the rent paid by the respondent to the petitioner. It was also contended by the counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court that in case these entries are not found correct, he would examine some witnesses to prove this fact before the trial Court. After observing that the respondent wants to reopen the entire case taking advantage of the remand, the application was dismissed as not maintainable.

(3.) BE that as it may, by the impugned order the petitioner has not been restrained from leading the evidence. Only the prayer for inspection of the accounts books has been declined. The petitioner will be at liberty to lead any evidence in support of his case in terms of the remand order. It is also obvious that the declining the permission to inspect the accounts books of the petitioner has not occasioned any failure of justice nor the petitioner will suffer any injury inasmuch as the petitioner is at liberty to lead appropriate evidence in support of his contention. In my view the order being an interlocutory order calls for no interference.