Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 2447
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
P.K. LOHRA, J.
L.R.S of Panna Lal - Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Umar - Respondent
Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2334 of 2016
Decided On : 27-11-2017
For the Appellants :S.L. Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Vishal Sharma, Advocate.
The discretionary power of the court under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC should be exercised sparingly as a last resort, especially in cases of wilful default or contumacious conduct.
Headnote:
Discovery - Suit for eviction and enhancement of rent - Order 11 Rule 21 CPC - Order 11 Rule 12 CPC - Order 11 Rule 14 CPC - Order 11 Rule 21 CPC - [Order 11 Rule 21] - [Suit for eviction and enhancement of rent] - [Order 11 Rule 12, Order 11 Rule 14, Order 11 Rule 21] - The court discussed the provisions of Order 11 Rule 12, Order 11 Rule 14, and Order 11 Rule 21 CPC and their interpretations. It highlighted the discretionary power of the court under Order 11 Rule 21 and emphasized that it should be exercised sparingly as a last resort, especially in cases of wilful default or contumacious conduct. The court also examined relevant legal precedents and concluded that the trial court had rightly declined the prayer for dismissal of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and enhancement of rent against the original defendant. The appellants, as the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, submitted an application for summoning account books. The respondent-plaintiff failed to produce the account books, leading to the appellants' application under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC for dismissal of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent-plaintiff's failure to produce the account books did not amount to wilful disobedience or contumacious conduct, and therefore, the trial court had rightly declined the prayer for dismissal of the suit.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent-plaintiff's non-compliance with the order for discovery warranted dismissal of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretionary power under Order 11 Rule 21 should be exercised sparingly as a last resort, especially in cases of wilful default or contumacious conduct.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found no merit in the appellant's prayer for dismissal of the suit.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The court emphasized that the discretionary power under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC should be exercised sparingly and only as a last resort, particularly in cases involving wilful default or contumacious conduct (!) (!) (!) .
-
The facts of the case involved a suit for eviction and rent enhancement, where the respondent failed to produce the requested account books, citing destruction due to the passage of time. The appellants sought dismissal of the suit under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC due to non-compliance, but the trial court declined this request (!) (!) .
-
The court found that the respondent’s failure to produce the documents did not amount to wilful disobedience or contumacious conduct, and thus, the trial court's decision to reject the application for dismissal was justified (!) (!) .
-
The legal provisions governing discovery and inspection of documents (Order 11 Rules 12, 14, 21, and 13) were discussed, highlighting that non-compliance alone does not automatically warrant dismissal of the suit or striking out of defenses unless it involves wilful default or obstinate conduct (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court underscored that the penalty provisions under Order 11 Rule 21 are highly penal and should only be invoked in extreme cases where default is wilful and contumacious. The default in this case was deemed not to meet that threshold (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The overall conclusion was that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in declining to dismiss the suit, and the appellate court found no merit in the appeal, leading to its dismissal (!) .
-
The judgment reinforced that non-compliance with discovery orders, when not wilful or obstinate, does not necessarily justify severe penalties such as dismissal of the suit or striking out defenses, and such drastic measures should be reserved for extreme cases (!) (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case?
P.K. LOHRA, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 7th of May 2016, passed by Addl. District Judge, Merta (for short, 'learned trial Court'), appellant-defendant has laid this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (f) read with Section 104 CPC. By the order impugned, learned trial Court rejected the application of appellant-defendant under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC.
2. The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and enhancement of rent against Pannalal, the original defendant. During the pendency of the suit, Pannalal died and therefore his legal representatives - appellants were brought on record. When the suit was posted for recording evidence of plaintiff-respondent, at the behest of appellants, an application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC was submitted for summoning the account books for the period from 11th of May 1994 to 11th of May 2000. The learned trial Court, after hearing arguments on that application, vide order dated 4th of November 2015 asked the respondent-plaintiff to produce account books on oath. The counsel for the respondent plaintiff, after seeking some time, submitted his affidavit on 19th of January 2016 that those account books are not within his power and possession as the same stand destroyed by afflux of time. Upon receiving this affidavit of the respondent-plaintiff, learned trial Court posted the matter for evidence but feeling disgruntled with the omissions of respondent-plaintiff, appellants submitted an application under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC. In the application it is pleaded by appellants that the respondent-plaintiff has failed to comply with the directions of the Court dated 4th of November 2015, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. On behalf of respondent-plaintiff, its reply was filed. The learned trial Court, thereafter, heard arguments and by the order impugned rejected the application of appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.L. Jain, has vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has seriously erred in rejecting their prayer for dismissal of the suit. Mr. Jain would contend that non-compliance of the order for discovery entails dismissal of the suit of plaintiff or striking out defence of the defendant but the learned trial Court has not examined the matter in right perspective. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order calls for interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on following legal precedents:
(1) Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr., 2012(8) SCC 148
(2) Indore Development Authority, Indore v. Satyapal Anand & Anr. 2000(2) Civil Court Cases 561 (M.P.) :(AIR 2000 Madhya Pradesh 74).
4. E converso, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Vishal Sharma, submits that Order 11 Rule 12 CPC simply envisage an application for discovery of documents and it is only under order Rule 14 Order 11 that the Court can pass an order for production of documents. Learned counsel has also submitted that Rule 13 of Order 11 also makes it abundantly clear that a party, against whom any order is made, can submit an affidavit incorporating objections to produce the documents. Mr. Sharma has urged that discretionary power conferred on the Court under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC can only be exercised when default by a party is wilful or party is guilty of contumacious conduct. Elaborating his submissions in this behalf, learned counsel would contend that power under Order 11 Rule 21 is to be exercised very sparingly as last resort. Lastly, learned counsel contends that the learned trial Court, upon examining the matter in its entirely, in its discretion, has rightly declined the prayer of appellant, and therefore, the said order is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. In support of his arguments, Mr. Sharma has placed reliance on following judgments:
(1) M/s. Babbar Sewing Machine Co. v. Tirlok Nath Mahaja
