KHETSIDAS Vs. NAROTUM GORDHUNDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a judge's summons taken by the defendants calling upon the plaintiffs to show cause why they should not " give inspection of the original contracts referred to in para 3 of the plaint." The defendants have not filed their written statement and they contend that they are entitled to inspection before filing their written statement. The plaintiffs on the other hand object to give inspection before the written statement is filed. Our Rule 162, which corresponds with Order xxxi, r. 15, entitles a party to call upon the other side to produce for his inspection any document of documents referred to in the pleadings.

(2.) The question is :-Are the documents of which inspection is sought referred to in the plaint. Reference is no doubt made in para 3 of the plaint to " several contracts " but this particular paragraph of the plaint is very inartistically worded. The argument before me by counsel has made things much clearer. It seems that the defendants father gave certain orders for purchase and sale of cotton and linseed which the plaintiffs carried out on his behalf. The plaintiffs have given inspection of the orders given by the defendants father-they have also given inspection of the entries in their soda nondhs purporting to show that they had carried out his orders. Those entries, copies of which were produced before me, refer to certain contracts entered into by the plaintiffs with other merchants in putting through the orders of the defendants father. Inspection is sought of those contracts. I do not think those are the con, tracts referred to in para 3 of the plaint.

(3.) The decision of Mr. Justice Farran in Ram Dyal V/s. Nurhurry (1894) I.L.R. 18 Bom. 368, based on the decision in Quilter V/s. Heatly (1883) 23 Ch. D. 42, has long been acted upon in. our Court and establishes the right of the defendant to inspect all such documents as the plaintiff refers to in his plaint and mentions as documents on which he will rely at the hearing before the defendant's written statement is filed. Section 59 of the Civil Procedure Code requires a plaintiff to annex to his plaint a list of documents on which he intends to rely at the hearing. The documents of which inspection is sought are not documents included in the list of documents annexed to the plaint enumerating the documents the plaintiffs will rely upon. Technically therefore the defendants are not entitled to claim inspection at this stage of the contracts entered into by the plaintiffs with other merchants in connection with the orders given to the plaintiffs by the defendants father during his life-time. As it has heretofore been the practice not to order inspection of documents other than those referred to in the plaint or relied on in the list annexed to the plaint till after the written statement is filed I will follow the practice and must decline to order the inspection that is sought in this summons. I must not, however, be taken as saying that this is to be the inflexible rule in all cases for I can conceive of many cases where it would be imperative to order the plaintiffs to produce and give inspection to the defendant before he has filed his written statement of a document or documents which they may not have mentioned in their plaint or enumerated in the list of documents annexed thereto.