Back
1988 Supreme(Ori) 40
High Court Of Orissa
K. P. MOHAPATRA
JANAKIBALLAV PATNAIK - Appellant
Versus
BENNETT COLEMAN AND CO.LTD. - Respondent
MISC. CASE APPEAL 69 Of 1987
Decided On : 03/09/1988
B.M.PATNAIK, R.MOHANTY
Documents which are relevant for the purpose of a suit and are within the possession and power of a party must be disclosed and produced in court, even if they constitute the party's evidence.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - DISCOVERY AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - RELEVANCE AND NECESSITY - DOCUMENTS WITHIN POSSESSION AND POWER OF DEFENDANTS - RELEVANT FOR PURPOSE OF SUIT - TO BE DISCLOSED AND PRODUCED IN COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed petitions for discovery and production of documents under Order 11, Rules 12 and 14 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in a suit for damages against the defendants for libellous publications.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the documents sought to be discovered and produced were relevant for the purpose of the suit and were within the possession and power of the defendants. The court further held that the defendants ought to have produced the documents in court under Order 13, Rule 1 of the CPC on or before the settlement of issues.
Issues: Whether the documents sought to be discovered and produced were relevant for the purpose of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down in M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379, and held that a party is generally entitled to inspection of all documents which do not themselves constitute exclusively the other party's evidence of his case or title. The court further held that every document which will throw any light on the case is a document relating to a matter in dispute in the proceedings, though it might not be admissible in evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and directed the defendants to give discovery of and produce upon oath the documents described in items 'b', 'c' and 'd' of the petitions in a sealed cover within fifteen days.
K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.
( 1 ) THE first petition is for discovery of documents under O. 11, R. 12 and the second petition is for production of the same documents under O. 11, R. 14 of the Civil P. C. ('code' for short ). Therefore both the petitions are disposed of by this common order.
( 2 ) IT is stated by the plaintiff that in order to prove his case for damages against the defendants for the libellous publications in the Illustrated Weekly of India, it is necessary that some documents which are relevant and are within the possession and power of defendants 1 to 3 should not only be given discovery, but should also be produced in Court in accordance with law.
( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 have opposed the petitions and in their counters, they have stated that the documents are their evidence which they will adduce at the time of hearing. They do not tend to support the plaintiff's case. Therefore, the disclosure of the documents will amount to disclosure of their evidence, in which case the plaintiff will be in a position to approach the defence witnesses in order to gain over them. They cannot also be forced to disclose their sources of information for publication of the offending articles. No prejudice will, therefore, be caused to the plaintiff, if the documents are neither given discovery nor produced in Court.
( 4 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, Rr. 12 and 14 of O. 11 are reproduced below :"rule 12. Application for discovery of documents: - Any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to the Court for an order directing any other party to any 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. On the hearing of such application the Court may either refuse or adjourn the same, if Satisfied that such discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the suit, or make such order either generally or limited to certain classes of documents, as may, in its discretion, be thought fit : Provided that discovery shall not be ordered when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. Rule 14. Production of documents : - It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto upon oath, of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just. "in AIR 1972 SC 2379, M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur, O. 11, R. 12 came up for interpretation. It was held that generally speaking, a party is entitled to inspection of all documents which do not themselves constitute exclusively the other party's evidence of his case or title. If a party wants inspection of documents in the possession of the opposite party, he cannot inspect them unless the other arty produces them. The party wanting inspection must therefore call upon the opposite party to produce the documents. And how can a party do this unless he knows what documents are in the possession or power of the opposite party? In other words, unless the party seeking discovery knows what are the documents in the possession or custody of the opposite party which would throw light upon the question in controversy, how is it possible for him to ask for discovery of specific documents? It was further held that every document which will throw any light on the case is a document relating to a matter in dispute in the proceedings, though it might not be admissible in evidence. In other words, a document might be inadmissible in evidence, yet it may contain information which may either directly or indirectly enable the party seeking discovery either to advance his case or damage the adversary's case or which may lead to a trial or enquiry which may have either of these two consequences
