9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Right to inspect documents under Order XI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Consequences of refusal to allow inspection of documents. 3. Discretion of the court under Order XI, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Legality of inspection conducted by an advocate without filing a vakalatnama. Detailed Analysis: 1. Right to Inspect Documents under Order XI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The appellant contended that he had a right to inspect documents under Order XI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The judgment clarifies that the right to inspect documents is provided for in Section 30 of the CPC, which allows the court to make necessary orders regarding the inspection of documents. The term "prescribed" in Section 30 refers to rules found in Order XI, Rules 15-18. Order XI, Rule 15 specifically refers to the inspection of documents "referred to in pleadings or affidavit." The court concluded that "referred to" means documents that are part of the case made in the plaint or written statement, including documents on which the plaintiff sues and those whose effect is stated in the pleadings. The court distinguished these from documents merely produced as evidence, which are listed under Order VII, Rule 14(2). 2. Consequences of Refusal to Allow Inspection of Documents: The court held that an omission to give inspection of documents referred to in Order XI, Rule 15 does not automatically result in the dismissal of the suit. Order XI, Rule 15 provides that if a party refuses inspection, they cannot use the document as evidence unless sufficient cause for the refusal is shown. Order XI, Rule 18(2) applies to documents not referred to in pleadings or affidavits, requiring an application supported by an affidavit for inspection. The court noted that no such application was made by the appellant, and the predecessor judge had noted that the appellant did not take any steps under Order XI. Therefore, the appellant's contention for automatic dismissal was rejected. 3. Discretion of the Court under Order XI, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The court emphasized that Order XI, Rule 21, which allows the dismissal of a suit for non-compliance with an order for inspection, is not automatic. The court has discretion and typically imposes such penalties only in clear cases where the party has deliberately disobeyed the court's order. The court found that the appellant did not make timely efforts to inspect the documents and only sought inspection after several peremptory hearing dates had passed. Thus, the subordinate judge acted correctly in dismissing the appellant's application. 4. Legality of Inspection Conducted by an Advocate Without Filing a Vakalatnama: The court addressed whether an advocate who has not filed a vakalatnama but is instructed by another pleader who has filed one has the right to inspect documents. The court explained the distinction between "to appear," "to act," and "to plead" in court. Order III, Rule 1 of the CPC allows a pleader to act on behalf of a client if duly appointed by a document in writing (vakalatnama). An advocate without a vakalatnama can only plead if instructed by another pleader who has filed one, but cannot act, which includes inspecting documents. The court concluded that the advocate (Mr. Ghose) had no right to inspect the documents as he had not filed a vakalatnama. The subordinate judge was correct in dismissing the application on this ground as well. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed on all grounds. The court found that the appellant had no absolute right to inspect the documents under Order XI, Rule 15, and that the refusal to allow inspection did not automatically result in the dismissal of the suit. The court also held that the discretion under Order XI, Rule 21 was correctly exercised by the subordinate judge. Lastly, the court confirmed that an advocate without a vakalatnama had no right to inspect the documents. No order as to costs was made.
|
