CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. VERMA ENGINEERING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this C. M. P. defendant No. 2 has made a prayer for direction to the plaintiff for the supply of copies of the documents annexed with the plaint, which are mentioned therein and nude a part of the plaint by making the annexures with the plaint. The application is opposed by the plaintiff. It has been pointed out that for want of the documents annexed with the plaint, the defendants are not in a position to file the written statements and hence prior to the filing of the writ en statements, the plaintiff be ordered to supply the said copies of the annexures. Learned counsel for the plaintiff in reply submitted that the application is mis -conceived on facts as well as in law. Order 1 of the Code of Civil procedure regulates the procedure for the filing of documents in the Court with the plaint and also of annexing the copies thereof of those documents in the second part of Rule 14 of Order 7 of the code of Civil Procedure provides for filing the list of documents on which the reliance is placed by the plaintiff. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to supply the copies to the defendant. Attention is also drawn to Rule 9 (1) of the Code pointing out that the plaintiff is bound only under this provision to supply as many copies of the plaint as there are defendants, as such the plaintiff cannot be compelled on this application to supply the copies of the documents referred to in the plaint and the copies which are annexed herewith. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also referred on this point A.I.R 1964 Tripura 25 (Satish Chandra Ghosh, Defendant, Petitioner Vs. Jyotish Chandra Ghosh) and A. I R. 1974 Patna 287 (Nirendra Kumar Gupta, Petitioner Vs. Smt. Chinta Devi, Opposite Party), the authority of Tripura while discussing the scope of Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure found it necessary that the first part of Order 7 Rule 14 provides the supply of copies of documents, about which it is held that the defendants will get copies of the documents on which the plaintiff sues and which he has filed with the plaint and this be given alongwith the copies of the plaint at the time of service of summon on him. With regard to the second part of the documents referred in second part of Rule 14, the provisions of Order 11 are to be invoked by the defendants; whereas the authority of Patna High Court holds a contrary view holding that the documents mentioned in Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be said to be a document referred to in the pleadings and the point regarding supply of copies of the documents made annexure with the plaint were not in question before the Patna High Court.

(2.) IN none of the authorities quoted above, attention of the Court was drawn to Rule 9 of Order 7. If the view held by Tripura High Court is to prevail, the provisions of Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure will become redundant. It is manifest from a plain language of Rule 9 that the plaintiff is bound to present as many copies of the plaint on the plain paper as there are defendants a power is also given to the Court to direct the plaintiff to present a concise statement of the nature of the claim made, or of the relief claimed in the suit, where the Court by reason of the length of plaint chooses to do so Such a language referred to in Rule 9 is not found in Rule 14, it cannot be read in Rule 14 or Rule 9 that the plaintiff should also file as many copies of the documents as the defendants are for delivery of the same to the defendants with the summons. Although the practice of annexing the documents with the plaint and make them annexures as part of the plain is not in -conformity with the provisions of Order 7, however, a combined reaJin4 of Rules 9 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure Keeps the discretion with the Court whether to direct the plaintiff to supply the copies of the documents annexed with the plaint to the defendants. It is manifest in Rule 9 that the Court is empowered even to direct the plaintiff to submit a concise statement of claim and the relief claimed in the plaint meaning thereby that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to deliver as many copies of the documents annexed with the plaint for service on the defendants, the only requirement of law is that the copy of the plaint shall accompany the summons and shall be delivered to the defendant. If the defendant so chooses for inspection of the documents delivered with the plaint under part I of Rule 14 to apply under the provisions of Order U of the Code of Civil Procedure for inspection or production, as the case may be in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Thus I find that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to supply the copies of the annexures to the defendants, which are available to him for inspection according to the procedure prescribed.

(3.) FOR the reasons stated herein above, the C. M. P. is dismissed. The defendants are directed to file the written statement on 26th of December, 1985.