1. In this application under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) the petitioner, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 challenges the order dated 14-12-1981 of the trial court allowing the application of the opp. party under O. 11, Rr. 12 and 14 of the Code for discovery and production of documents.
2. The petitioner filed the suit, M.S No. 312 of 1981, in the court of the subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack claiming Rs. 500000/- (Five lakhs) from the opposite party with pendent lite and future interest towards damages for the alleged false allegations and accusations made by the opposite party against the petitioner questioning its eligibility and competence to undertake the work in connection with the construction of Mahanadi-Birupa Barrage Project. On being noticed in the aforesaid suit, the opposite party before filing his written statement filed an application under O. 11, Rr. 12 and 14 of the Code, praying for the direction to the petitioner to make discovery of the documents described in the Schedule to the application. The schedule contained a list of the following 11 documents:
(1) Certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff-Company.
(2) Article of Association and Memorandum of Association of the plaintiff-Company.
(3) Document/documents evidencing the plaintiff-Company undertaking contract of construction works.
(4) Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company allowing shares.
(5) Return of allotment of shares filed with the Registrar of Companies, Orissa.
(6) Document evidencing arrangement of Rs. 75,00,000/- for undertaking construction work of Rs. 100 crores.
(7) Document evidencing the plaintiff's registration as a special class contractor.
(8) Copy of the tender notice for construction of Mahanadi-Birupa Barrage.
(9) True copy of the tender submitted by the plaintiff.
(10) Names of the members of the contract committee relating to the above tender.
(11) Documents in support of each item of claim of damages stated in para 34 of the plaint.
It is relevant to mention here that the application comprising of three paragraphs gave no indication whatsoever how the documents mentioned in the schedule were relevant for the purpose of the case, except a bald statement to the effect “in order to enable the defendant to file the written statement it is expedient in the interest of justice that appropriate direction be given to the plaintiff to make discovery on oath of the documents mentioned in the schedule below which are in the possession/or power of the plaintiff and which relate to the matters in question therein.” In the next paragraph, it is similarly stated that discovery of the documents is necessary for fair disposal of the suit. The petitioner in its counter to the said application stated, inter alia, that the documents named in the schedule were irrelevant for the purpose of the suit; description of the documents, particularly those under serial Nos. (3), (4), (5), (6), (9), and (11), was vague and further that the application for discovery at that stage was misconceived in law. On these grounds, the petitioner prayed for rejection of the application.
3. The trial court by the impugned order allowed the application and directed the petitioner to make discovery of the documents described in the schedule to the petition filed by the opposite party by the date specified. The impugned order reads as follows:
“…. In the present case the documents sought to be made discovery of by the plaintiff are within the knowledge of the plaintiff and that those documents will no doubt throw light upon the question in controversy. Law is well settled that the documents which throw any light on the case are the documents which relate to the matter in question in the suit. In view of the above reasons the prayer of the defendant to direct the plaintiff to make discovery of the documents mentioned in his petition is allowed….”
4. There was no appearance on behalf of the opp. party at the time of hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is unsustainable since it was passed without due application of mind. The court, according to the learned counsel, did not even consider the relevance of the documents mentioned in the schedule for the case.
5. From the relevant portion of the impugned order quoted earlier, it is clear that the direction of the trial court for production of the documents by the petitioner comes within the purview of O. 11, R. 14, C.P.C The power of the court to direct production of the document by any party at any time during the pendency of the suit cannot be questioned. But before giving a direction to a party to make discovery of document in his possession or power or for production of document, the court has to be satisfied that the document in question is relevant for proper adjudication of the matter involved in the suit. The privilege vested in a party to the suit by the provisions under O. 11, Rr. 12 and 14 of the Code is not intended to enable him to cause a roving enquiry to fish out information which may or may not be relevant for disposal of the suit. No doubt, the party seeking discovery or production of the document need not satisfy the court that the document in question is admissible as evidence in the suit it would be sufficient to show that the contents of the document would throw light on the subject-matter of the suit. Unless these basic requirements are insisted upon by the court before issuing a direction under the aforesaid provisions, the provisions are likely to be utilised for harassing the other party instead of helping in proper adjudication of the dispute in the case.
In this case, as noticed earlier, the application for discover/production of the documents was filed by the opposite party before filing his written statement. No attempt was made in the application to show how the documents described in the schedule were relevant to the subject-matter in the suit and in what manner their contents were likely to throw light on the subject-matter involved in the suit. As the impugned order reveals the trial court also did not apply its mind to find out if these conditions were satisfied in the case except making a bald and general observation that the documents described in the schedule will no doubt throw light upon the question in controversy. This is further clear from the fact that the description of many of the items in the schedule, particularly items Nos. (3), (4), (5) and (11) were vague and unintel ligible. This, to say the least, was not a satisfactory manner of disposing of the application. It is needless to reiterate that the discretion vested in the court under the provisions of the Code has to be carefully exercised and that a direction should not be issued as a matter of course.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussions the impugned order is unsustainable and has to be vacated. That is not to say that the opposite party would not be permitted to make an application at the appropriate stage making out a case for discovery or production of the documents under O. 11, R. 14, C.P.C If such an application is filed the trial court will consider and dispose of it in accordance with law.
7. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is vacated. There would be no order for costs of this proceeding.
Revision allowed.