In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2813 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: July 16, 2009 Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner vs. Col. A.S. Judge ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D.S. Narula, Advocate, Ms. Manmeet Arora, Advocate, Ms. Geetika Pannar, Advocate and Mr. Aashish Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harpreet S. Pokli, Advocate and Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.4.2008 passed on an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for production of the documents. The apathy of the case is that the suit having been filed by Punjab Beverages Pvt. Limited for permanent injunction on 18.10.2007 is still at a rudimentary stage awaiting decision as to whether the plaintiff was liable to produce certain documents along with the plaint. After the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (herein referred as 'the petitioner') on 18.10.2007, the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC was filed by the defendant -respondent (herein referred as 'the respondent') on 16.11.2007 over which the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chandigarh, directed the petitioner to produce the required documents. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under :- Civil Revision No. 2813 of 2008 (O&M) -2- *** “...... Thus, the case of the plaintiff is based upon that they are Directors and one of the share holders of the plaintiff and in order to decide the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to direct to the plaintiff to produce the entire records in respect of share holders of the plaintiff company and Minutes book from the inception of the plaintiff company. Further more, it has been specifically mentioned in the application by the applicant-defendant that shares of original share holders particularly of the shares of Late Mohan Singh and his wife Laj Kaur. The share holding of other share holders have also been forged. In view of this, since the defendant has specifically challenged the appointment of Directors and that the documents of share holders of the plaintiff company have been forged and fabricated, therefore, it is essential for the adjudication of the present case to direct the plaintiff to produce these documents in the court in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present application filed by the applicant defendant under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure succeeds and the same is allowed and the plaintiff company is directed to produce the entire records i.e. record/file of share holding of the plaintiff- company since its inception and minutes book of the plaintiff company since inception. Ordered accordingly.” Notwithstanding the fact that it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to produce the documents over which he places reliance. The defendant moved the application and the court ordered to produce those documents. Now the petitioner has agitated the order protesting that he is not required to produce all the documents. The rule actually is not applicable to the defendant but it applies to the plaintiff and if he does not produce the documents over which he places reliance, of which he is in possession and power, at that time and if the same also is not included in the list, in that situation no such penalty Civil Revision No. 2813 of 2008 (O&M) -3- *** upon the plaintiff for striking off the defence is provided. However, the only check for non compliance of order 7 Rule 14 CPC was earlier provided under Rule 18 of the said order. Now while deleting the said, the legislature has added sub-rule (3) and (4) in order 7 which are reproduced as under :- “14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies - (1) xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx xx xx (3) The document which out to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witness, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” Thus, the document which the plaintiff failed to produce along with the plaint could not produce the same later except in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (3) or the document could also be brought on record during cross examination of the defendant's witnesses as provided under sub-rule (4). There is no such provision under the Code that for non compliance of order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the suit could be dismissed or any penalty could be imposed upon the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, these procedural provisions were brought on the statute book just to regulate the trial and the orders passed on such applications do not decide the rights of the parties, or effect the trial, as such the same cannot be challenged by way of revision. The learned counsel for the respondent in an anxiety to compel the plaintiff to produce the documents has tried to take shelter of order 11 Rule 14 of the Code while urging that though the application refers to Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, but the nomenclature under which the petition is filed is not relevant and does not debar the court from exercising its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure prescribed which procedure is mandatory, therefore, while pleading his case and Civil Revision No. 2813 of 2008 (O&M) -4- *** bringing it within the purview of Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, has said that the petitioner is bound to produce the documents as mentioned in the order as the order could be treated as passed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC. Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC reads as under :- “Production of documents - It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.” On bare perusal of the aforesaid rule it transpires that rule provides for production of document upon oath. In actual practice production is now obtained by party under Rule 15 or under Order 18, therefore, the power to order production of document is coupled with the discretion to examine the expediency, justness and the relevancy of the document to the matter in question. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in case Basanagouda vs. Dr. S.B. Amarkhed (1992) 2 SCC 612 : AIR 1992 SC 1163, wherein it was observed as under :- “The Court's power to order reproduction of documents is coupled with discretion to examine the expediency, justness and the relevancy of the documents to the matter in question. These are relevant considerations which the court shall have to advert to and weigh before deciding to summon the documents in possession of the party.” From the observations as recorded by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment it could well be observed that a different procedure has been provided for production of documents under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 of CPC. Irrespective of the fact that the party could step over Rule 14 of Order 11 CPC without invoking the Rule 12 of the said order, yet the Court Civil Revision No. 2813 of 2008 (O&M) -5- *** will have to advert to the relevant consideration of expediency, justness and relevancy of the documents by recording its satisfaction with regard thereto before deciding to summon the document in possession of the parties. It was also observed by this Court in case Ahuja Distributor and Anr. vs. Sarup Tanneries Limited and Anr. (2008) 151 PLR 484, that an application under Order 11 Rule 14 is independent of Order 11 Rule 12 and that the court has enough discretion and it may even suo moto call for such documents which it may consider relevant for the matter in issue. Under the aforesaid circumstances, it could well be observed as under :- 1. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC are meant to be applied by the plaintiff and the defendant could not compel him to produce any document under that provision and non compliance of the Order 7 Rule 14 CPC could entail an inference against him or place obligation upon him to produce such document at a latter stage with the permission of the Court. 2. The provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 are independent to each other. No doubt the powers as envisaged under Order 11 Rule 14 are wider then that as mentioned in Rule 12 but before exercise of the power under Order 11 Rule 14, the Court was to exercise its discretion while examining expediency, justness and relevancy of the document to the matter in question. 3. The document required by the Court to be produced under Rule 14 of Order 11 CPC, were required to be produced on oath, on completion of the procedure as provided under Rule 15 of the said order. As per practice, permission is obtained on notice under Rule 15 or by order under Rule 18, therefore, the power to order to production of document is coupled with the discretion to examine the expediency, justness and relevancy of the documents to the matter in question. Civil Revision No. 2813 of 2008 (O&M) -6- *** In view of the aforesaid discussions, it would not be unsafe to observe that the petitioner could not instrument the application moved before filing the written statement under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, as having been filed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC which imbibes a different procedure and different formalities. At the same time, it would not be apposite to mention that it would not be advisable to bring such litigation to the High Court which would serve no purpose except to hijack the trial for years together. In the similar circumstances, Delhi High Court took a serious view in case Lunarmech Machinefabric Ltd. & Anr. V. USF Filtration Ltd. & Anr., 132 (2006) DLT 169, wherein it was observed as under :- “45. Before parting with this judgment I feel constrained to record that it has become a practice with some litigants not to allow the trial Court to proceed further and reach decision of the main suit. On every interlocutory and procedural order they rush to the higher Courts and more often than not want the higher Courts to go into deep details of the matters of which the trial Court has still to apply its mind and in this way they want to pre-empt the orders to be passed by the trial Courts and want the higher Courts to take up the work of the trial Courts. Such litigants cannot be allowed to hijack the justice delivery system and mould it according to their whims and fancies.” The case which has been filed in the year 2007 is still lingering at the preliminary stage by filing of such petitions against the interlocutory and procedural orders which should be discouraged. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition being not maintainable is dismissed. However, the respondent if wants the production of any document which he deems expedient, just and relevant to the matter in question, may move appropriate application afresh for production of the same at the appropriate stage. July 16, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge