The central legal point established in the judgment is that the duty is cast upon the Court to satisfy itself whether the documents sought for discovery are relevant for the purpose of disposing the suit and not for fishing out the information, and that the Court should consider the potential for roving inquiry.

JUDGMENT

1. In a suit for declaration being S.C. Suit No. 1233 of 2017, in relation to immovable property, Petitioner/Plaintiff took out Chamber Summons No. 721 of 2019 under the provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC, which came to be rejected on 23/10/2019. As such, this Petition.

2. Mr. God bole, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff while inviting attention of this Court to the pleadings in S.C. Suit No. 1233 of 2017, particularly the prayer made therein, would urge that the Court below has committed an error of law in rejecting the Chamber Summons taken out, praying for issuance of order of discovery. According to him, since the trial in the suit has not commenced and to find out exact truth in view of rival contentions from the pleadings, it is necessary to exercise powers under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC, thereby granting discovery. Further contention is, the Court is not powerless to grant discovery at the stage where evidence of the Plaintiff is being recorded. Relying on the judgment in the matters of NTPC Ltd vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., reported in (2015) 1 Bom CR 612 and Bhagwani Devi Mohata Hospital vs. A.D.J. Rajgarh & Anr reported in AIR 2005 Raj 274, he would urge that this is a fit case wherein Court should have exercised discretion vested in it. Further contention of Mr. God bole is, Court erred in recording a reason that the stage of discovery is over and hence the application taken out for discovery is not maintainable.

3. Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 would urge that the order impugned is just and proper as the Court has recorded correct reasons in support of prayer for rejection of the Chamber Summons. It is further claimed that the Petitioner is indulging in roving inquiry so as to collect evidence. Reply given to Chamber Summons that too on affidavit dealing with documents on which reliance is sought, is relied upon by learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 for pursuing prayer for rejection of the Petition.

4. It is further claimed by the Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 that the documents referred in clauses (b),(d),(h) and (i) are not in possession of Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 and they are in possession of brother of the Petitioner/Plaintiff i.e. son of the Respondent No.1.

5. The contentions of the Petitioner/Plaintiff are resisted by the Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 on affidavit and as such it is claimed that the object of moving the Chamber Summons is to delay the proceedings.

6. I have considered rival submissions in the light of pleadings in the plaint and also claim made in the Chamber Summons.

7. It is required to be noted that Respondent No.1/Defendant No. 1 has given inspection of one document to the Petitioner/Plaintiff which is claimed to be in possession of Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1.

8. The provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 which deal with discovery and inspection, same empowers a party to a suit to pray for directions to other party to the suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power. It is also necessary for the Court to satisfy itself that document should be relating to any matter in question in the suit. Proviso to Order 11 Rule 12 contemplates that the Court may or may not order discovery, if it is of the opinion that same are not necessary for disposing of the suit or for saving costs. Power under Order 11 Rule 14 i.e. for production of documents, precedes with the procedure contemplated under Order 11 Rule 12.

9. It is also required to be noted that such documents are not required to be used with ulterior motive for causing roving inquiry. As such, duty is cast upon the Court to satisfy itself whether such documents are relevant for the purpose of disposing the suit and not for fishing out the information. If we consider nature of documents of which discovery is sought, it is noted that communication between Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 with her son and such other documents, su