The court's discretion under O. 11, Rr. 12 and 14 of the CPC must be carefully exercised and a direction for discovery or production of documents should not be issued as a matter of course.

D. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) IN this application under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') the petitioner, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act 1956 challenges the order dated 14-12-1981 of the trial court allowing the application of the opp. party under O. 11, Rr. 12 and 14 of the Code for discovery and production of documents.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed the suit, M. S. No. 312 of 1981, in the court of the subordinate Judge, First Court Cuttack claiming Rs. 50,0000/- (five lakhs) from the opposite party with pendente lite and future interest towards damages for the alleged false allegations and accusations made by the opposite party against the petitioner questioning its eligibility and competence to undertake the work in connection with the construction of Mahanadi-Birupa Barrage Project. On being noticed in the aforesaid suit, the opposite party before filing his written statement filed an application under O. 11, Rr. 12 and 14 of the Code, praying for the direction to the petitioner to make discovery of the documents described in the Schedule to the application. The schedule contained a list of the following 11 documents : (1) Certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff-Company. (2) Article of Association and Memorandum of Association of the plaintiff Company. (3) Document/documents evidencing the plaintiff-Company undertaking contract of construction works. (4) Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company allowing shares. (5) Return of allotment of shares filed with the Registrar of Companies, Orissa. (6) Document evidencing arrangement of Rs. 75,00,000/- for undertaking construction work of Rs. 100 crores. (7) Document evidencing the plaintiff's registration as a special class contractor. (8) Copy of the tender notice for construction of Mahanadi-Birupa Barrage. (9) True copy of the tender submitted by the plaintiff. (10) Names of the members of the contract committee relating to the above tender. (11) Documents in support of each item of claim of damages stated in para 34 of the plaint. It is relevant to mention here that the application comprising of three paragraphs gave no indication whatsoever how the documents mentioned in the schedule were relevant for the purpose of the case, except a bald statement to the effect "in order to enable the defendant to file the written statement it is expedient in the interest of justice that appropriate direction be given to the plaintiff to make discovery on oath of the documents mentioned in the schedule below which are in the possession/or power of the plaintiff and which relate to the matters in question therein. " In the next paragraph, it is similarly stated that discovery of the documents is necessary for fair disposal of the suit. The petitioner in its counter to the said application stated. inter alia, that the documents named in the schedule were irrelevant for the purpose of the suit; description of the documents, particularly those under serial Nos. (3), (4), (5), (6), (9), and (11), was vague and further that the application for discovery at that stage was misconceived in law. On these grounds, the petitioner prayed for rejection of the application.

( 3 ) THE trial court by the impugned order allowed the application and directed the petitioner to make discovery of the documents described in the schedule to the petition filed by the opposite party by the date specified. The impugned order reads as follows :". . . . IN the present case the documents sought to be made discovery of by the plaintiff are within the knowledge of the plaintiff and that those documents will no doubt throw light upon the question in controversy. Law is well settled that the documents which throw any light on the case are the documents which relate to the matter in question in the suit. In view of the above reasons the prayer of the defendant to direct the plaintiff to make discovery of the documents mentioned in his petition is allowed. . . . "

(