CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD. Vs. BADEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 R. 1 (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order of the District and Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, purporting to act under Order 11, Rule 21. The facts relating to this case are that the Appellant filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 56,000/ - and odd against certain persons on the basis of an account with the Plaintiff. The Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 were ex parte and Defendant No. 7 applied to the court for inspection of the accounts of the Appellant and the court directed the Plaintiff to give inspection of the accounts. Some of the accounts, it was stated, were given inspection of and as regards the inspection of other documents, inasmuch as they were consigned to the record room, the Plaintiff asked for some more time to get them out to offer for inspection to the Defendant. The lower court most summarily rejected this application stating that no further time could be granted and on account of the fact that the Plaintiff did not comply with the order of the court to give inspection of the accounts within that period, dismissed the suit purporting to act under Order 11 Rule 21, Code of Civil Procedure Code. We are of opinion that this order of the lower court cannot be sustained.

(2.) IN the first place we fail to see how there is any non -compliance of the order of the Court, for, an order under Order 11, Rule 21 could be passed only when there is non -compliance of the order of the court. In this case we find that the Plaintiff asked for further time to be able to give inspection of other accounts. There is always a power vested in the court under Section 148</A> to extend the period granted by it for the doing of an act. The Court could very well have acted and granted further time under Section 148</A>, especially when the reason given by the Plaintiff was that they were not in a position to give inspection, the documents having been consigned to the record room. We cannot help -remarking that the Sessions Judge has been very harsh in this case towards the Plaintiff and Has most summarily rejected the application. He should have taken into consideration that the case related to a Bank where there was no question of any wilful default occurring as we see that the application was a bona fide application asking for extension of time. Under the circumstances the court, ought to have granted time to afford the Plaintiff an opportunity to get the books. We do not regard this as a deliberate and wilful neglect on the part of the Plaintiff and the court could not have exercised this power unless it came to the conclusion that there was a wilful and deliberate neglect on the part of the Plaintiff. We might herein refer to the cases of - V. R. A. R. M. Chettiyar Firm v. V. C. R. A. C. T. Nachiappa Chettiyar AIR 1935 Rang 310 and Jagannath Motilal v. Bala Prasad <MID></MID> : AIR 1925 Cal 166. We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the order of the lower court and direct that the lower court do allow an opportunity to the Plaintiff to give inspection of the documents. The Appellant will be entitled to the costs of this appeal. Advocate's fee Rs. 50/ -.