Skip to content


Chandmull Goneshmull Vs. Dhanraj Ganpatroy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in56Ind.Cas.457
AppellantChandmull Goneshmull
RespondentDhanraj Ganpatroy
Cases ReferredRam Dyal Saligram v. Nurhurry Balkrishna
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order vii, rule 14, order xi, rule 15 - documents on which plaintiff relies defendant, right of, to inspect documents. - .....is a decision in his favour. in that case reliance is placed on quitter v. reatly (1883) 23 ch. d. 42 : 48 l.t. 373 : 31 w.r. 831 which is a decision under order xxxi, rule 14, of the english rules which corresponds to our order xi, rule 15. both these rules refer to documents referred to in the pleadings or affidavits, but the documents in the list referred to in order vii, rule 14, are not, in my opinion, documents referred to in the pleadings within the meaning of those rules. i am unable to agree with the decision in ram dyal saligram v. nurhurry balkrishna 18 b. 368 : 9 ind. dec. (n.s.) 753 (ubi supra) and i do not think the defendant is entitled to the order which he seeks. the application is dismissed with costs. i certify for counsel.
Judgment:

Greaves, J.

1. This is an application by the defendant for an order that the plaintiff firm do give inspection of the documents mentioned in the list annexed to the plaint of documents relied on in the plaint. The plaintiff firm offered inspection of the sowdah which is the only document actually referred to in the plaint, but denied the right of the defendant to inspect the documents in the list attached to the plaint of documents relied on by them until the defendant had filed his written statement.

2. The application for inspection was made in reliance on Order XI, rule 15, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that every party to a suit shall be entitled at any time to give notice to any other party in whose pleadings or affidavits reference is made to any document to produce such document for the inspection of the party giving such notice or of his Pleader and to permit him or them to take copies thereof.

3. Order VII, rule 9, provides that the plaintiff shall endorse on the plaint or annex thereto a list of the documents (if any) which he has produced along with it and Order VII, rule 14 (1), provides that when a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint, and Sub-section (2) provides that where he relies on any other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint.

4. Now, it seems to me that these rules make a distinction between documents sued upon and documents relied on. Of the 1st the plaintiff must give inspection and produce either the original or a copy when the plaint is presented, of the 2nd neither production at the time of presentation of the plaint is required nor delivery of the document or a copy. The list added or annexed to the plaint is not part of the pleading, and it is not verified as it would have to be were it part of the pleading and it does not, I think, fall within Order XI, rule 15, and consequently the defendant is not entitled to inspection as of right which is what he claims here. Moreover, the fact that the list is to include documents whether in the possession or power of the plaintiff or not, points to the fact that it cannot have been intended that inspection should be given of documents in the list. Reliance is placed by the defendant on Ram Dyal Saligram v. Nurhurry Balkrishna 18 B. 368 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 753 which is a decision in his favour. In that case reliance is placed on Quitter v. Reatly (1883) 23 Ch. D. 42 : 48 L.T. 373 : 31 W.R. 831 which is a decision under Order XXXI, rule 14, of the English Rules which corresponds to our Order XI, rule 15. Both these rules refer to documents referred to in the pleadings or affidavits, but the documents in the list referred to in Order VII, rule 14, are not, in my opinion, documents referred to in the pleadings within the meaning of those rules. I am unable to agree with the decision in Ram Dyal Saligram v. Nurhurry Balkrishna 18 B. 368 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 753 (ubi supra) and I do not think the defendant is entitled to the order which he seeks. The application is dismissed with costs. I certify for Counsel.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //