D.L. MEHTA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order dated 5.9.85 passed by the court below.

2. Plaintiff instituted a suit against the present petitioners defendant for the declaration that her service have wrongly been terminated and she is still the employee of the institution.

3. Application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was filed by the present petitioner No. 1. The petitioner also moved an application under Order 11 Rule 12 as well as under order 11 rule 14. The application was granted and the present petitioner has been directed to produce the documents in the court.

4. Mr. Chadha appearing on behalf of the present petitioner defendants submitted that application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 cannot be submitted in miscellaneous application filed in a suit for the grant of temporary injunction. Order 11 Rule 12 provides that any party may apply to the court for directing any other party to a suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power relating to any matter in question therein. After hearing the parties, the court if satisfied may pass an order and direct the opposite party to submit the affidavit under Rule 13. Mr. Chadha has cited before me the case of Rathindra Bose v. Jyoti Bikash Ghosh (1). Their Lord-ships have held as under;-

"It was contended that the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 9 was in the nature of an original proceeding as was held in the case of Salil Kumar v. S.N. Ghose, 63 Cal. W.N. 883-(AIR 1960 Cal. 203) and the procedure of the Code is applicable to it as provided in section 141, so that the order of the trial court would be one under Order 39 though in a proceeding and not in suit and thus applicable. It would however, appear that "proceedings in any court of Civil Jurisdiction has been held to be original matters like pro-bates guardianships and so far as observed in Thakur Parshad Fakirullah (1985) 22 Ind App 44 (PC) or divorce, insolvency. This provision includes original matters which originate in themselves and not these which spring up from a suit or from other proceeding or arise in connection there with. This was the view taken in the Bench decision of this court in Sarat Krishana Bose v. Bisweswar Mitra, AIR 1927 Cal. 534, The contention of Mr. Mitra is thus not tenable."

Mr. Chadhas contention is that the provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 only applies in the matters which originate in themselves and not those which spring up from a suit or other proceedings or arise in connection there with. It will not be out of place here to mention that to avoid the controversy which may arise in such matters the explanation under sec 141 has been added vide Amending Act, 1976. Explanation provides that in this section the expression "proceedings" includes the proceedings under Order 9. Thus, the citation which has been cited by Mr. Chadha loses its importance after the amendment of the C.P.C. The explanation is only explanatory and starts with the word "includes," Thus the word includes enlarges the scope of Section 141 C.P.C. and in proceedings of a miscellaneous nature which arise in a suit falls within the difficulties of section 141 CPC to avoid the difficulties of the litigants and multiplicity of proceedings. If an application is filed in the original suit and the temporary injunction application is disposed off without the assistance of the original file then there will be chaos. The assistance of the original file is always taken while deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is a part and parcel of the suit and it cannot be excluded. After the adding of the explanantion there remains nothing to be argued and the court was justified in applying the provisions of Order 11 Rule 12. The application of the present non-petitioners plaintiff relating to Order 11 Rule 12 should be accepted and the present petitioner defendant is directed to file an affidavit under Order \ 1 Rule 13.

5. M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document