9911796707
TMI Blog1952 (9) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy with the nazir of the court. From the note made in the margin it appears that the documents were received in a sealed box. The endorsement is dated June 12, 1951. Nothing further appears to have been done by Defendant No. 1. It appears from the order, dated January 4, 1952, that Defendant No. 1 did not file any documents nor did he taken any steps under Orders XI, XII and XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. An application made by him for further time to file documents or take steps was rejected as frivolous. The suit was adjourned to March 6, 1952, for peremptory hearing. This order was made by Mr. B.C. Nandi, learned subordinate judge then in charge of the court. It appears from the Order sheet that the peremptory date for hearing was shifted from time to time and it was finally shifted to June 18, 1952. On May 21, 1952, Defendant No. 1 prayed for permission to inspect the documents filed by the Plaintiff. The successor, learned subordinate judge Mr. P.C. Roy Choudhury, thereupon, after hearing the learned pleaders, made an order to the following effect: Inspection of the documents to be made in the presence of the lawyers of the parties and the sheristadar of the court. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort of the appeal, has contested the propriety of the order made by the learned subordinate judge. In the first place, Mr. Chakraborty has contended that Defendant No. 1 (the Appellant) had a right of inspecting documents under the provisions of Order XI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter to be called the Code. 6. The right of a party to inspect documents is provided for in Section 30 of the Code. The relevant portion of the section states that- subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed the Court may at any time (a) make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to inspection of documents or other material objects producible as evidence 7. The word prescribed is denned in Section 2(16) of the Code to mean prescribed by the rules . The relevant rules are to be found in Order XI, Rules 15-18. These rules lay down the ambit of the power of a court to direct inspection of documents. Order XI, Rule 15 refers to inspection of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavit . The word pleading is defined in Order XI, Rule 2, to mean a plaint or a written statement. Order XI, Rule 13 refers to an affidavit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aves J. in the case of Chandmull Ganeshmull v. Dhanraj Ganapatroy (1919) 24 C.W.N. 302. A similar view was taken by Vivian Bose J. in the case of Nagpur Glass Works v. Onama Glass Works [1938] A.I.R. Nag. 239. The view which I have taken is not inconsistent with the view taken in Quilter v. Heatley (1883) 23 Ch. D. 42 which turned on a construction of Order XXXI, Rule 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court which corresponds to Order XI, Rule 15 of the Code. In that case the documents in question of which inspection was sought for were those which were referred to in the pleadings. 9. The view taken by me is, however, opposed to the view taken in the case of Ramdoyal Saligram v. Nurhurry Balkrishna (1894) I.L.R. 18 Bom. 368 and Ramnathan v. Anna Malal [1931] A.I.R. (Mad.) 825. The contention of Mr. Chakraborty that the documents of which inspection was applied for in the present case are those which are referred to in Order XI, Rule 15, cannot, therefore, be accepted. 10. But conceding that the contention of Mr. Chakraborty is correct, Mr. Chakraborty is not right in saying that an omission to give inspection of the documents referred to in Order XI, Rule 15, entails an automati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Bangshi Singh v. Palit Singh [1907] 7 C.L.J. 295. Again, under Order XI, Rule 21, the court can act on the application of a party and not suo motu and when an application is made the court may make an order as expressly stated in Order XI, Rule 21. It is well-settled that the court does not impose the penalty under Order XI, Rule 21, except in clear cases and where the party refusing inspection is contumacious or has deliberately disobeyed the order of the court with full knowledge thereof. Bangshi Singh v. Palit Singh (supra). 13. In the present case, if the court had a discretion, quite, apart from the legal objection raised on behalf of the Appellant, the present case, in my opinion, is one in which that discretion should not be exercised in favour of the Defendant No. 1. No attempt was made by the Defendant No. 1 to have inspection of the documents filed long ago and it was Only after several peremptory dates for hearing had passed that an attempt was made to have inspection of the documents. In my opinion, the learned subordinate judge acted rightly in dismissing the application filed on behalf of the Defendant No. 1. 14. This conclusion is sufficient for the disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attorney of a High Court . Order III, Rule 1 provides that any application or act in or to any court, required or authorised by law to be made or done by the party in person may be made by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf. Rule 4 then provides the mode in which a pleader may be appointed. Rule 4(2) provides that no pleader shall act unless appointed for the purpose by a document in writing signed by such person or his recognised agent or by some other person empowered by a power of attorney and such document shall be filed in court. Sub-rules 3 and 4 are not material for the present purpose. Sub-rule 5 provides that no pleader engaged for pleading only shall plead on behalf of any party unless a memorandum of appearance containing the particulars mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) has been filed in court. This sub-rule is subject to a proviso which runs as follows: Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply to any pleader engaged to plead on behalf of any party by any other pleader who has been duly appointed to act in court on behalf of such person. 17. In other words, the rule draws a distinction between a pleader who ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
