IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.2186 of 2006 Anil Kumar Jha & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 10 19-10-2011 Heard the learned senior counsel Mr. S. K. Majundar appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of the revision application. In this revision application the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the appellate court below whereby the order passed under Order 11 Rule 21 C.P.C dismissing the suit has been set aside. The defendants filed a petition under Order 11 Rule 11 C.P.C. for a direction to the plaintiffs to answer the interrogatories. The lower court allowed the prayer of the defendants to serve the interrogatories and directed the plaintiffs to answer those interrogatories. Thereafter the plaintiffs had submitted the answer to the interrogatories which had been annexed with this revision application also as Annexure-3 . Thereafter the parties were heard and by order dated 17-7-2001 the lower court has directed the plaintiffs to file relevant documents in support of their answer to the interrogatories. It appears that those documents had not been filed by the plaintiffs and consequently by order dated 13-9-2011 the lower court exercising the powers under Order 11 Rule 21 C.P.C. dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the appellate court allowed the appeal holding that the suit of the plaintiffs could have been dismissed only in the case of their failure to answer the interrogatories and accordingly the dismissal of the suit was set 2 aside. The provisions of Order 11 C.P.C. relating to interrogatories are very specific and clear and consequence upon the failure to comply with the directions by any of the parties has also been mentioned in detail in Rule 21 of the said Order. The provision of Order 11 Rule 21 C.P.C. reads as follows: “21. Non-compliance with order for discovery—(1) Where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a defendant, to have his defence, if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the Court for an order to that effect and an order may be made on such application accordingly, after notice to the parties and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) Where an order is made under sub-rule (1) dismissing any suit, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action.” The perusal of the Order 11 Rule 21 C.P.C. above mentioned shows that the consequence of dismissal of the suit can follow only when the plaintiffs would have failed to answer the interrogatories. There is nothing in the said Rule 21 to empower the court to dismiss the suit for compliance of the order for production of documents. An order for production of documents is quite different from an order for discovery and order for inspection of documents. Therefore, the failure to produce documents in compliance of an order of the court passed under Rule 14 of Order 11 C.P.C. does not fall under Rule 21 of Order 3 11 C.P.C. The lower court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing the suit by exercising its power under Rule 21 of Order 11 C.P.C. The Apex Court in the case of Babbar Sewing Machine Co. Vs. Tirlok Nath, reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1436, while dealing with the provision of Rule 21 of Order 11 C.P.C. observed that the powers under that Rule should be exercised with caution and should not be made unless there has been obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the party or wilful attempt to disregard the order of the court. In the present case the plaintiffs had already submitted their reply to the interrogatories in compliance of the order of the court. The further order for production of documents had not been complied by the plaintiffs, but for that non- compliance the suit could not have been dismissed under Rule 21 of Order 11 C.P.C. There is no jurisdictional error or illegality in the order of the appellate court. This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)