1989 Supreme(MP) 547

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R. K. Varma, J.
Manohar Dev - Appellant
Vs.
Moolchand Dev - Respondent
C. R. No. 217 of 1988 (I)
Decided On : 23-01-1989

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.11, R.14 – only relevant documents can be ordered to be produced – voluminous record to fish out some useful documents cannot be got produced.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.11, R.18 – provisions under – can be exercised to dispose of suit fairly or for saving cost.

        Short Note

       1. This is a revision by the applicants – defendants against the order dated 7 – 9 – 1988 passed by the Vth Addl. Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 129 – A of 1986, whereby the applicants – defendants application dated 5 – 8 – 1988 under order 11, rule 14 read with section 151 C.P.C. seeking an order for production of documents for the purposes of cross – examination of the plaintiff, has been disallowed.

       Held : Under order 11, rule 14 C.P.C the Court can order production of only such documents as relate to the matters in dispute. It cannot be invoked for the purpose of bringing into existence a document which may be useful for the case by giving an opportunity to the defendant to inspect voluminous records to fish – out some useful documents The provision of order 11, rule 14 CPC empowers the Court to order production by any party to the suit of such document relating to any matter in question in the suit as the Court thinks right. It is not meant for making available for inspection the documents which the defendant requires for making out a case. In the instant case, what the defendant seeks by his application under order 11, rule 14 C.P.C. is an opportunity of inspection of voluminous records from 1976 to 1985 comprising the account – books, the vouchers and the gatepasses for the period of 10 years and for that purpose he bas invoked the Court's power under order 11, rule 14 C.P.C. Such an application under O.11, R.14 C.P.C. is misconceived and has rightly been disallowed by the trial Court. Even if the said application of the defendants were to be treated as an application under order 11, rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure for inspection of documents, the same could not be allowed since under order 11, rule 18 CPC., the provisions are as wide as the Court's powers are, they can only be exercised for the purpose of disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs which is not the case in the instant suit. A defendant cannot be permitted to inspect the adversaries account – books to fish out a possible defence nor to enable him to better cross – examine the plaintiff's witneS. For this proposition of law learned counsel for the non applicants has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Sohanlal v. Nandlal (1968 MPLJ Note: 53). Learned counsel for the non – applicants has also placed reliance on a decision in Bagyalakhmi Ammal and others v. Srinivasa Reddiar (AIR 1960 Madras 510) which lays down that a party cannot be compelled to produce any document or to give inspection of the same for the purpose of facilitating cross – examination or for enabling the opposite party to understand the genuineness or purport of the documents relied upon by the party producing them for proving its case.

       Having heard learned counsel, I am the opinion that the order of the learned Trial Court rejecting the applicants' application for production of inspection of documents is justified and does not call for interference in this revision. 1968 MPLJ – SN and AIR 1950 Mad. 510 relied on. Revision dismissed.