Back
BELA M.TRIVEDI
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ram Bagh Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
What is... How to determine the applicability of Order XI Rules 12, 14 & 15 versus Rule 21 and Section 151 in striking out a defense? What is... What are the limits of the inherent powers under Section 151 when specific Code provisions exist? What is... How should a trial court proceed when there is confusion between production/discovery orders and non-compliance leading to striking out of defence?
Key Points: - (!) Production of documents, not discovery, can be ordered under Rule 14; Rule 12 deals with discovery directions, not production. - (!) Non-compliance with discovery orders can lead to dismissal or striking out under Rule 21 for a plaintiff/defendant respectively, but only if an order to answer interrogatories or for discovery/inspection exists. - (!) Discovery and production are distinct; non-compliance with production orders does not automatically invoke Rule 21 penalties. - (!) M.L. Shethi v. R.P. Kapur: affidavit of documents and discovery procedures must be followed; non-compliance can lead to penalties, not automatically striking out without a discovery order. - (!) Inherent powers under Section 151 cannot be exercised where Code provisions provide a remedy; should follow specific rules (Nainsingh v. Koonwarjee). - (!) The orders dated 1.2.2011 and 3.3.2012 were set aside; required fresh decision on discovery/production applications under law. - (!) Court must decide afresh under law; expeditious disposal urged. - (!) Writ petition and CMA allowed; remand to trial court to decide under proper legal framework.
Bela M. Trivedi, J.— This common judgment is being passed for disposing of the Civil Writ Petition No.4210/2011 as well as the Civil Misc. Appeal No.2045/2012, which are inter-connected with each other and arises out of the proceedings in the same suit.
2. The S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4210/2011 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order dated 1.2.2011 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No. 19/2007 (207/2002), whereby the trial court has -allowed the application of the respondent No.1-plaintiff filed under Order XI Rule 12, 14 & 15 read with Section 151 of CPC. The C.M.A.No.2045/2012 has been filed by the same appellant/defendant challenging the order dated 3.3.2012 passed by the trial court in the said suit, whereby the trial court has allowed the application of the respondent No.1-plaintiff for striking out the defence of the appellant-defendant under Order XI Rule 21 read with Section 151 of CPC.
3. The chronology of events necessary for the purpose of deciding these ‘two matters is that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit aga
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
