BIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SM CHINTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has moved this Court in the revisional Jurisdiction against the order of the subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Monghyr, refusing to allow the inspection to him of the agreement for sale alleged to have been executed by him on 5-1-1971 for specific performance of which a title suit has been instituted by the plaintiff-opposite party.

(2.) learned Counsel, appearing in support of the petition submitted that under the provision of Order 11, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner was entitled as a matter of course to inspect the document in question before filing of the written statement. It is difficult to accept the contention raised by learned Counsel. Rule 15 of Order 11 of the Code authorises a party to the suit to give notice to the adversary in whose pleading or affidavit reference is made to any document to produce such document for inspection of the party giving such notice or of his pleader, and to permit him to take copies thereof. That rule has got no application to this case. The agreement, obviously in question is the basis of the suit and that has got to be filed along with the plaint itself which has to be produced in court along with the filing of the plaint under the provision of Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code. Rule 15 of Order 11 however speaks of a notice by the party to his adversary with reference to the documents stated in the pleading or affidavit to produce such document for inspection. That obviously refers to the documents which are not the basis of the suit and' have to be produced at a later stage simply' as evidence. The omission of the class of' documents referred to in Order 7, Rule 14 in Rule 15 of Order 11 is advisedly done as the defendant is supposed to be aware of such a document and he should file his written statement before any inspection setting up his defence as he chooses. The documents mention in Order 7, Rule 14 cannot be said to be a document referred to in the pleading or affidavits within the meaning of Order 11, Rule 15 of the Code. The privilege of inspection by a party of the documents of his adversary is not a matter of routine but can be allowed only on judicial consideration. Granting of inspection prior to the filing of the written statement in such cases may result in fishing out false and frivolous pleas of defence by a defendant. Learned Counsel failed to cite any authority in support of his contention that the defendant is entitled in law to apply for inspection before the filing of his written statement of the document referred to in Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code. I do not see any possible difficulty in the way of the defendant in filing his written statement to state in the same as to whether he has executed the agreement of sale or not and in case he has not executed the same he can very well challenge the validity of the document setting up all possible pleas as his defence.

(3.) I am therefore not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Let the petitioner file his written statement and thereafter if he so likes he may apply to the court below for inspection of the document in question and the Court below will permit him to inspect the same.