Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit to recover from the defendants the price of certain goods ordered by the defendants under various indents. Under the form of indent employed the defendants agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs the goods mentioned in the indents, or any portion of them at the prices and on the terms noted therein and to pay for the goods at the current rate of exchange for demand Bank Bills on London on delivery of the shipping documents. The goods arrived but the defendants refused to take delivery or to pay for the goods. In the plaint the plaintiffs referred to the invoices received from England for the goods which the plaintiffs had ordered to fulfil their contracts with the defendants, It appears that the defendants wore willing to take delivery of the goods provided the plaintiffs were willing to fix the rate of exchange at 2 s. On the 9th of February 1921 the defendants wrote:-
Received your letter and in reply 1 bog to write that if you agree to give me the rate of exchange at 2 s. for said five cases according to the resolution passed by our Native Piece Goods Merchants Association, 1 will be prepared to take up these cases.
2. The defendants before filing their written Statement have taken out this summons asking for an order that the plaintiffs should give inspection to the defemdants of the invoices referred to in paragraphs 10 to 15 of the plaint.
3. Now, undoubtedly the defendants are entitled, under Order XI, Rule 15, Civil Procedure Code, to give notice to the plaintiffs to produce these invoices for their inspection and if inspection is refused, they are further entitled to get the opinion of the Judge whether such a demand for inspection is justifiable. That is provided for by Rule 18, under which 'the Court may, on the application of the party desiring it, make an order for inspection,.... Provided that the order shall not be made when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.
4. It appears now that the defendants claim that undertheir contracts with the plaintiffs they are not obliged to pay for the goods at the contract price but at some other price at which the plaintiffs may have secured the goods in England; and it is for that purpose that they are now seeking inspection of these invoices, which would she the prices at which the plaintiffs secured the goods. On the facts alleged in the plaint and on the written contracts signed by the defendants, it is perfectly obvious that the contention raised now by the defendants is untenable, as the defendants under their contract had nothing to do with the prices which the plaintiffs paid in England. Accordingly the defendants have not made out a cane for an order directing the plaintiffs to give inspection.
5. The law is laid down under the corresponding Supreme Court Rule in Quilter v. Heatly (1883) 23 Ch. D. 42 where Bowen L.J. said :
Order XXXI, Rule 14, provides for immediate production of any document which a party has referred to in his pleadings for affidavits. The party against whom the application is made must produce them unless he can shew good cause why he should not. If he refuses, the party applying can go to the Judge, who may refuse the application if he sees good reason for so doing,... In my opinion the onus is on the refusing party.
6. So that the plaintiffs here have to give sufficient reason why they should not be ordered to give inspection of these invoices. Now it is clear that these invoices are merely referred to in the plaint as part of the narrative showing how the plaintiffs Received advice of the goods they had purchased in England so that they could make out their own invoices to send to the defendants. The plaintiffs were not obliged to mention the invoices they received from England since the invoices were not necessary either for proving the plaintiffs' case or for assisting the defendants in their defence. The present application is obviously made for the purpose of delaying the plaintiffs' suit.
The summons will be discharged with costs.
7. Counsel certified.