Non-compliance with a court order for discovery of documents, coupled with vague explanations, can justify striking off a party's defense under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant impugns order dated 04.08.2018 whereby, on an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Rule 21 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short), the defence of the appellant has been struck off, for failure to comply with the order dated 14.01.2016 passed under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC.

2. Subject suit for recovery was filed by the respondent against the appellant contending that the respondent/plaintiff was a given work order by M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd for erection and commissioning of 80 Mega Watt Capacity Power Plant.

3. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd in turn awarded a sub contract to the respondent/plaintiff for the said purpose as respondent was an approved vendor/contractor for the same.

4. It is contended in the plaint that the appellant company had introduced an incentive scheme for rewarding the respondent company in carrying out the erection and commissioning of the plant and accordingly issued a letter/scheme of incentive dated 26.02.2007.

5. It is contended that the respondent/plaintiff duly executed the work as per the scheme, however, the benefit of the scheme was not granted to the respondent/plaintiff. Consequently, the subject suit was filed.

6. One of the issues arising in the suit was as to whether the respondent had completed the work within the time schedule so as to be entitled to the monetary incentives. The case of the plaintiff was that the work orders for the sections of erection and commissioning of the plant, which were to be done by the respondent/plaintiff, had a co-relation to the work protocols entered into between the appellant and M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

7. It is contended that it was only when Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd handed over possession of certain sections of the work, which were to be completed prior to the commencement of the work by the respondent/plaintiff, that the time limit as stipulated in the incentive schemes would get triggered.

8. Respondent filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC seeking discovery of the work protocols entered into between the appellant, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd and the respondent. The contention of the respondent is that the work protocols after their execution were in the power and possession of the appellant.

9. The first application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Joint Registrar. Thereafter respondent filed another application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC which was also dismissed by the Joint Registrar. Subsequent thereto subject application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC was filed which was also rejected by the Joint Registrar.

10. In a Chamber appeal said application was allowed by this learned Single Judge by order dated 14.01.2016.

11. Order dated 14.01.2016 specifically directed the appellant to discover, in accordance with law and as provided in the specified form, the documents being the work protocols entered into by the appellant/defendant with M/s. BHEL pertaining to such work protocols which had a direct bearing on the work which was sub contracted by the appellant to the respondent. The Court clarified that appellant need not discover documents being the work protocols entered into between it and BHEL which had no bearing with respect to the obligations of the respondent under the work orders issued by the appellant to the respondent. The needful was directed to be done within a period of eight weeks.

12. Order dated 14.01.2016 also notices the fact that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court had been enhanced. The Court by order dated 14.01.2016 transferred the Records to the jurisdictional Court under the District & Sessions Judge and directed the parties to appear before the District Judge on 22.03.2016.

13. It is an admitted position that said order dated 14.01.2016, under Order 11 rule 12 CPC, was not complied with by the appellant within the period of eight weeks.

14. It is pointed out by learned senior counsel for the appellant