1987 Supreme(MP) 451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
P.D. Mulye, J.
Patwa Abhikaran – Applicant
Versus
North West Automobiles – Non-applicant
C.R. No. 140 of 1987 (I)
Decided On : 27-08-1987

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 11, R. 14 – application under – documents sought to be produced should be clearly specified with purpose of production.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 19, R. 2 – cross – examination on affidavit should be limited to averments mentioned in the affidavit only.

        Short Note

       1. The plaintiff – respondent filed the present suit against the applicant – defendant for permanent injunction in respect of the disputed property, which according to the plaintiff was given to the defendant on the basis of a licence, the period of which has already expired.

       2. In that suit the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction which was supported by an affidavit. The defendant – applicant opposed the said application and had prayed for cross – examining the plaintiff who had given an affidavit in support of that application to show that the plaintiff was in fact in possession. The said application was allowed and the defendant – applicant was permitted to cross – examine the plaintiff as contemplated by provisions of O. 19, R. 2 C.P.C.

       3. In order to disprove the averments made in the affidavit regarding plaintiff's possession, the defendant – applicant submitted an application under O.11, R. 14 C.P.C. calling upon the plaintiff to produce certain documents at the time of the cross – examination of the plaintiff, on the basis of the affidavit filed by him. That application was allowed only in part. Hence this appeal.

       Held: The defendant – applicant is expected to cross – examine the plaintiff on the basis of the affidavit filed by him for which the scope is quite limited and he cannot be permitted to make a roving enquiry regarding the past affairs of the Company at this stage especially when the execution of the licence deed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff is not disputed. That apart, a bare reading of the application filed under O. 11, R. 14 C.P.C. would indicate that no specific documents as such have been called for nor the learned counsel for the applicant was able to convince me that record as such in fact was needed at that stage. If the defendant really needed any documents, which according to him were necessary, then in that case it was necessary for him to give specific details about the same and also to show how they are relevant at this stage. All these things are lacking in the present case. In these circumstances, I am of opinion that no interference with the impugned order is called for in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or legal infirmity. 1971 MPLJ SN 130 and AIR 1975 H.P. 12 referred to. Revision dismissed.