Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
P.C. Misra, J.
BENNET COLEMAN AND CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER - APPELLANT
Versus
JANAKI BALLAV PATNAIK AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
A.H.Os. Nos. 25 and 30 of 1988
Decided On : 03-12-1988
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL - MAINTAINABILITY - ORDER DIRECTING DISCOVERY AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - WHETHER JUDGMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF LETTERS PATENT - INTERPRETATION OF ORDER 11, RULES 12, 13 AND 14 CPC.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for damages against the defendants for alleged libelous publication in a magazine. The plaintiff filed applications under Order 11, Rule 12 and Order 11, Rule 14 CPC for discovery and production of documents. The single judge directed the defendants to make discovery and produce the documents. The defendants challenged the order in two appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order did not affect any of the vital or valuable rights of the appellants so as to classify the same as "judgment" within the meaning of letters patent. The court clarified that the impugned order did not prohibit the appellants from filing an affidavit objecting to the production of the documents in respect of which order of discovery had been made.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order was a judgment within the meaning of letters patent? 2. Whether the appellants were entitled to file an affidavit objecting to the production of the documents? 3. Whether the documents sought to be discovered and produced were relevant to the plaintiff's suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that an order substantially affecting the rights of the parties or which decides matters of moment touching the rights or liabilities of the parties cannot strictly speaking be termed as interlocutory order. 2. The court held that the impugned order did not expressly spell out the opportunity to file an affidavit objecting to the production of the documents and the direction for production of the document was given simultaneously, there was a scope for confusion. 3. The court held that it would be open to the appellants to object the production of documents or parts of the documents which would disclose the quantum of pay/remuneration, if at all payable to Defendants 2 and 3 and such objection being taken, it would be open to the learned Single Judge to pass appropriate orders as it would think fit and proper.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed subject to the clarification made by the court. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
P.C. Misra, J. - These two appeals arise out a common order disposing of Mise. Cases Nos. 69 and 70 of 17 arising cut of O.S. No. 1 of 1987 pending before one of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court for trial. In Mise Case No. 69/87 the Plaintiff prayed for discovery of some documents under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC the production of which was prayed for in another application under Order 11, Rule 14 CPC registered as Misc. Case No. 7087 The Hon'ble Single Judge after hearing, both parties directed Defendants 1 to 3 to make discovery and produce the documents described in items (8)(C)(D) of the petition within a time fixed by the Court.
2. Since both the appeals are interlinked, they were heard analogously at the request of the parties and are disposed of by this judgment. The suit out of which the aforesaid Mise Cases arose is one for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1 crore as damages from the Defendants for the alleged libelous publication in the Magazine. The illustrated Weekly of India of which Bennett Coleman and Company ltd (Defendant No. 1) is the Proprietor, Pritish Nandy (Defendant No. 2) is the Editor and Publisher and Sri S.N. Abdi (Defendant No. 3) is the Special CorRespondent In the plaint it was alleged that the Defendants are joint tort-feasor and are jointly and severally liable to pay the damages claimed: In the written statement of Defendant No. 1 it denied its liability to pay the damages saying that there is absolutely no nexus between Defendant No. 1 and the alleged defamation as neither the Board of Directors of the Company of Defendant No. 1 nor the whole time Directors have had anything to do with the alleged contents of the issue of the Illustrated Weekly of India and that the Defendant No. 1 cannot be held responsible for what the Editor publishes in the Magazine because he has the full freedom to publish what no deems fit for publication in the Magazine. Since the plaint alleges that Defendant No. 1 being the Principal/employer/Master of Defendant No. 2 and that Defendant No. 2 has printed published circulated the said issue of illustrated Weekly in the course of and within the ambit of his employment under Defendant No. 1 Defendant No. 1 would be vicariously liable for damages Defendant No. 1 in its written statement has denied its liability stating that the Defendant No. 2 the editor of the magazine, is at no point of time the agent of Defendant No. 1 and that Defendant No. 2 has printed and published the said alleged offending article in the Magazine in exercise of his freedom as an Editor. Defendants 2 and 3 have taken similar stand in their defence. The Plaintiff in his application under Order 11, Rule 12. CPC prayed for directing Defendants 1 and 2 to make discovery of documents mentioned in sub-pares (A) to (E) of para 1 of his application alleging that in view of the aforesaid pleadings, those documents are relevant for adjudication of the case. Out of the aforesaid documents, the learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff did not press for discovery/production of the documents mentioned in items (A) and (E), and therefore, the learned Single Judge considered the desirability of discovery and production of the remaining documents. The present Appellants (Defendants 1 and 3) and proforma Respondent No. 2 filed their objection to the said applications stating that the documents in question are not relevant and that the move of the Plaintiff is bona fide. With respect to the documents described in item (D) it was stated that the same has been seized by the police in connection with G.R. Case No 959/86 pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rourkela. The learned Single Judge after considering the contentions of both parties, allowed both the applications by directing Defendants 1 to 3 to give discovery of and produce upon oath the documents described in items (B), (C) and (D) of para 1 of the application. The Appellants challenged the legality of the said order in both these a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
