Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
Vipin Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Wahid Ahmad Qureshi (Deceased) And Others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 10305 Of 2023
Decided On : 04-01-2024
Order XI C.P.C. - Inspection of Documents - Rule 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 - Rule 21 - Section 107 - Order XLI Rule 33 - Peoples Education Society, Bombay v. The State of A.P. - Jankidas v. Kaushalya Devi - Nagpur Glass Works Ltd. and others v. Shree Onama Glass Works Ltd., Gondia - Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against the defendant-petitioner. The trial court decreed the suit, and the defendant-petitioner filed an appeal challenging the judgment. During the appeal, the defendant-petitioner sought inspection of documents mentioned in the plaint, which was contested by the plaintiffs-respondents. The lower appellate court dismissed the defendant-petitioner's applications, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the time limit for inspection of documents as prescribed by the amended Rule 15 of Order XI C.P.C. is 'at or before the settlement of issues.' The court held that the refusal to inspect the document did not amount to denial of opportunity to defend, as the inspection had to be completed by the time issues were settled. The court also noted that the power to allow inspection cannot be exercised at the appellate stage after contesting the suit on merits and passing of the decree.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of Order XI C.P.C. in appeals, the time limit for inspection of documents, and the denial of opportunity to defend due to refusal of inspection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the amended Rule 15 of Order XI C.P.C. prescribes a time limit for inspection of documents, which must be completed 'at or before the settlement of issues.' The court also highlighted that the power to allow inspection cannot be exercised at the appellate stage after contesting the suit on merits and passing of the decree.
Final Decision: The court held that the lower appellate court committed no illegality in dismissing the application of the petitioner, and consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This petition has been filed for the following relief :
3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents instituted Original Suit No.823 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut against the defendant-petitioner for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 7.1.1975 executed between the father of the plaintiffs-respondents and the defendant-petitioner. The aforesaid suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. The Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut Court No.6 vide the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2010 decreed the suit. The defendant-petitioner filed Civil Appeal No.157 of 2010 challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2010 passed by the trial court. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant-petitioner gave a notice under Order 11 Rule 16 C.P.C. for inspection of documents mentioned in paragraph no. 4, 8 & 9 of the plaint of O.S. No. 823 of 2000. The plaintiffs-respondents contested the application by filing their objections to the effect that document referred in paragraph no. 4 of the plaint are already part of record and no documents are referred in paragraph nos. 8 & 9 of the plait. Since, the plaintiffs-respondents failed to comply with the notice under Order XI Rule 16 C.P.C., the petitioner filed application Paper No.225 Ga under Order XI Rule 21 C.P.C. with a prayer to dismiss the aforesaid suit for non-compliance of the provisions contained in Order XI Rule 16 C.P.C. This application was also contested by the plaintiffs-respondents by filing objections inter alia pleading that the documents are already on record. Then the petitioner moved another application Paper No.229 Ga with the prayer that the plaintiffs-respondents be directed to specify as to when the aforesaid documents were filed. Both these applications filed by the petitioner being Paper No.225 Ga under Order XI Rule 21 and application No.229 Ga were considered and dismissed by the lower appellate court by its judgment and order dated 2.9.2023, hence the present petition.
4. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Order XI C.P.C. are applicable in appeal also in view of Section 107 of the C.P.C. read with powers of the Appellate Court conferred by Rule 33 of Order XLI. It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the provision of Order XI C.P.C. are applicable to appeals filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., the Court below erred in law has rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 21 C.P.C. Before proceeding with the merits of the case, it will be useful to look into the relevant statutory provisions provides for inspection of documents referred to in pleadings or otherwise, which is as under :-
Every party to a suit shall be entitled on or before the settlement of issues any time to give notice to any other party, in whose pleadings or affidavits reference is made to any document or who has entered any document in any list annexed to his pleadings or produce such document for the inspection of the party giving such notice, or of his pleader, and to permit him or them to take copies thereof; and any party not complying with such notice shall not afterwards be at liberty to put any such document in evidence on his behalf in such suit unless he shall satisfy the Court that such document relates only to his own title, he being a defendant to the suit, or that he had some other cause or excus
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit for inspection of documents as prescribed by the amended Rule 15 of Order XI C.P.C. is 'at or before the settlement of issues,'....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement to establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents at the time of filing, as per Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and clarifies....
The stringent provisions of Order XI Rule 21 of the CPC should be applied only in extreme cases, where there is contumacy or a willful attempt to disregard the court's order.
The court permits amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC when necessary for complete adjudication, emphasizing a liberal approach and avoiding hyper-technical refusals.
Procedural rules should not obstruct substantial justice; reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents must be interpreted liberally to ensure fair adjudication.
The appellate court may only admit additional evidence under specific conditions, which were not met by the petitioners, as they failed to demonstrate due diligence in producing the evidence during t....
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
