1986 Supreme(MP) 729

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
J.S. Verma, J.
Raoji Bhai Patel - Petitioner
Vs.
M/s Dhanawat Bidi Factory - Respondent
C.R. No. 607 of 1985 (J)
Decided On : 29-04-1986

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.77, R.2 – leave to deliver interrogatories relating to income tax – cannot be refused.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.77, R. 2 and 11 – refusal of permission to deliver interrogatories – cogent reasons should be given.

       (3) Income Tax Act, 1961 – S. 54 and 137 – section 137 being deleted no protection under S. 54 available.

        Short Note

       This revision is against the trial Court's order dated 17 – 6 – 85 granting leave to the petitioner (Plaintiff) to deliver to the defendants some interrogatories while refusing permission to deliver the remaining interrogatories. It is, therefore, only to this extent that the matter has to be examined in this revision.

       2. Held: Leave in respect of interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 9, 13 and 14 has been refused merely on account of the prohibition relating to disclosure of information contained in section 54 of the Income – tax Act, 1922. It is patent that the Court below overlooked the fact that the corresponding section 137 of the Income – tax Act 1961, has been deleted resulting in removing the restriction so imposed by the provision. Refusal of permission to deliver these interrogatories is erroneous for this reason alone.

       3. So far as the remaining interrogatories which have been disallowed are concerned, no clear reason has been given in the impugned order. It is, therefore, not possible to decide whether refusal of permission is based on cogent reasons or not. In such a situation, it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to re – examine the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with law; regarding the interrogatories which have been disallowed.

       4. Shri Nair, learned counsel for the respondents, stated that the defendants are from Nepal and, therefore, it will have to be examined whether any other provisions relating to Income – tax is applicable to them. For this reason, it is directed that the trial Court shall decide the question relating to interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 9, 13 and 14 also afresh bearing in mind the fact that the only reason given by it for disallowing the same is incorrect as already pointed out. Revision allowed.