1995 Supreme(MP) 175

R.D. Vyas, J.
Satyapal v. Indore Development Authority
C. Revn. No. 45 of 1992 (I); Decided on 1.2.1995.

Headnote:Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 11 R. 12 -- party seeking discovery -- need not specify particular document -- opposite party is under obligation to file affidavit for discovery.

        flfoy Áfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 11 fu- 12 & i{kdkj }kjk ÁdVhdj.k bZfIlr & fof’k"V nLrkost fofufnZ"V djuk vko‘;d ugha & fojks/kh i{kdkj ÁdVhdj.k ds fy, ‘kiFki= Qkby djus dks ck/; gSA

        This revision application is directed against the order of the Lower Court dated 4.2.91, by which the application of the applicant under Order 11, Rule 12, read with S. 151 of the C.P.C. was rejected.

        The applicant wanted discovery of the document relating to the matter in question in Civil Suit No. 89-A/89. He wanted the other side to make discovery of any document, having been in possession or in power of the non-applicant.

        The Lower Court, according to Shri Anand, has passed the order in disregard of judgment of this Court, as also of the Supreme Court. He referred to the Supreme Court decision in M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur (AIR 1972 SC P. 2379) particularly at page 2382, more particularly in paragraphs 5 &. 8. He then referred to 1985 JLJ 559 = 1986 M.P. Law Journal Page 684. He has referred to 1990 JLJ P. 281. Following the above Supreme Court Judgment he brought reference to paragraphs 6 & 7. He also referred to 1992 (II) Weekly Notes, note 40 and Rules 142 and 143 of M.P. Civil Court Acts & Rules.

        Held : The Supreme Court questioned that how can a party, wanting to inspect, do that, without knowing what document are in possession or in power of the opposite party? It is stated that unless the party seeking discovery knows, what are the documents in possession or in custody of the opposite party, which would throw light on the question in controversy, how is it possible for him to ask for discovery of specific documents? It is stated that when the Court makes an order for discovery under the rule, the opposite party w bound to make an affidavit of document, and if he fails to do so, he will be subject to penalties specified in Rule 21 of Order 11. Ultimately, the Supreme Court, disagreed with the finding of the High Court and upheld the order of the Trial Court, directing the discovery to be made.

        In view of the decision in AIR 1972 SC P. 2379 (M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur), having been followed by this Court, it cannot be said that the lower Court was justified in saying that by citing these authorities, the applicant had only pointed out the provisions of law, without giving particulars of the documents which he sought to be discovered. The lower Court was not justified in rejecting the application of the applicant under Order 11 Rule 12, for discovery of documents relating to the matter in question in the suit, from which the present revision application arises.

        The respondent-defendant is, therefore, directed to file affidavit for discovery of documents, relating to the matter in question in the suit, from which the present revision application arises, within a period of 1 month from today, i.e. by or before 3rd March 1995, failing which, the consequences provided by law will follow. AIR 1972 SC 2379, 1985 JLJ 559, 1992 (II) MPWN 40 and 1990 JLJ 281 relied on. Revision allowed.