C.R. No. 576 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 576 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 9, 2009 Phool Singh …..Petitioner Vs. M/s Rajesh Kumar Naresh Kumar and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. A.K. Bura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated October 3, 2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kaithal, rejecting the application dated June 9, 2008 filed by the petitioner- defendant for production of ‘J’ forms, sale tax returns and income tax returns. C.R. No. 576 of 2009 [2] On asking of the Court, counsel for the defendant- petitioner has produced a copy of the application filed by the defendant- petitioner. It is averred in the application that the plaintiff has not supplied the copies of the documents to the defendant upon which he had relied upon in the case. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and considered the legality of the order dated October 3, 2008 in context to the provisions of Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 CPC. As per Rule 14 CPC, it is 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. Under Rule 15 CPC, the inspection of documents which are referred to in the pleadings by the plaintiff can be claimed. As per proviso of Rule 12 CPC the discovery of any document shall not be ordered when the Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary for disposing fairly of suit or for saving costs. The case of the plaintiff appears to have been filed on the basis of the account books. The relevant bahi entries have been attached with the plaint as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. These have been compared by the officials of the Court as is apparent from the impugned order. So far as the ‘J’ form, sale tax and income tax returns are concerned, the application is vague pertaining to the period. Moreover, these documents may be relevant for the defence which is to be raised in the written statement to contest the claim of the plaintiff- respondent in a suit C.R. No. 576 of 2009 [3] for recovery. It will always be open to the defendant to produce these documents by summoning from the concerned quarters by indicating their relevance. At this stage, the request for production of ‘J’ forms, sales tax and income tax returns, balance sheet etc. seem to be vague and merely an excuse to delay the filing of the written statement. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed without prejudice to the other legal rights of the defendant-petitioner. July 9, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE