By the impugned order the defendant's application for discovery was rejected by the Trial Court. The trial Court has observed that the documents in respect of which discovery was sought were not specified. The application has been rejected on the ground of vagueness and for not specifying the documents.

In Shri M.L. Sethi v. Shri R.P. Kapur (AIR 1972 SC 2379) the Supreme Court in para 5 of its Judgment has observed that it was wrong to hold that an application for discovery should specify the documents sought to be discovered.

It was further observed that generally speaking, a party is entitled to inspection of all documents which do not themselves constitute exclusively the other party's evidence of his case of title. If a party wants inspection of documents in the possession of the opposite party. He cannot inspect them unless the other party produces them. The party wanting inspection must, therefore, call upon the opposite party to produce the documents, and how can a party do this unless he knows what documents are in the possession or power of the opposite party? In other words, unless the party seeking discovery knows what are the documents in the possession or custody of the opposite party which would throw light upon the question in controversy, how is it possible for him to ask for discovery of specific documents? The Supreme Court while examining the provisions of O.11, R. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure observed that when the Court makes an order for discovery under the rule, the opposite party is bound to make an affidavit of documents and if he fails to do so, he will be subject to the penalties specified in rule 21 of O. 11. An affidavit of documents shall set forth all the documents which are, or have been in his possession or power relating to the matter in question in the proceedings. And as to the document which are not but have been in his possession or power, he must state what has become of them and in whose possession they are, in order that the opposite party may be enabled to get production from the persons who have possession of them. After he has disclosed the document by the affidavit, he may be required to produce for inspection such of the documents as he is in possession of and as are relevant.

This being the scheme of the provisions for discovery of documents, the trial Court has certainly committed material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction to allow or reject an application for discovery.

The impugned order, therefore, if allowed to stand will cause failure of justice. It is, therefore, set aside and the application under O. 11, R. 12 of the CPC rejected by the trial Court is allowed. The trial Court shall take further steps in the matter. This revision application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. There shall however, be no order as to costs. AIR 1972 SC 2379 followed.

Surjeet Singh for applicant; S.R. Kochatta for non-applicant.