1972 (7) TMI 105 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Discovery of documents in forma pauperis proceedings.
2. Relevance and specificity of documents sought for discovery.
3. Jurisdiction and material irregularity in trial court's orders.
4. High Court's interference under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Discovery of Documents in Forma Pauperis Proceedings:
The respondent filed a suit in forma pauperis seeking damages for malicious prosecution. The appellant requested the discovery of documents to prove that the respondent was not a pauper. The trial court ordered the respondent to disclose various documents, including bank accounts and property records. The respondent failed to comply and sought revision of the order, which the High Court granted, stating that the sophisticated procedure of discovery should not be used in summary proceedings under Order 33, Rules 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. Relevance and Specificity of Documents Sought for Discovery:
The High Court held that the appellant's application for discovery was vague and did not specify the documents sought. It also noted that the trial court did not consider the necessity or relevancy of the documents and overlooked the respondent's right to claim privilege. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that discovery is essential for a party to know what documents are in the possession of the opposite party. The Court emphasized that documents need not be admissible in evidence but should be relevant to the matter in controversy. The Supreme Court found the trial court's order for discovery to be specific and relevant to determining the respondent's means to pay court fees.

3. Jurisdiction and Material Irregularity in Trial Court's Orders:
The High Court found that the trial court acted with material irregularity by not considering the necessity and relevancy of the documents and by not allowing the respondent to claim privilege. The Supreme Court clarified that the trial court had jurisdiction to order discovery and that any error in law within jurisdiction does not constitute a jurisdictional error. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's order was not vitiated by any error of law and that the refusal to adjourn did not occasion any failure of natural justice.

4. High Court's Interference under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The Supreme Court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows interference only when the subordinate court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court cited several precedents to illustrate that errors of law not related to jurisdiction cannot be corrected under Section 115. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the trial court's orders as there was no jurisdictional error.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowing the appeal but making no order as to costs. The trial court's order for discovery was upheld, and the dismissal of the respondent's application to sue in forma pauperis was deemed valid. The Supreme Court's decision emphasized the applicability of discovery procedures in forma pauperis proceedings and clarified the limited scope of High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.