CIVIL REVISION NO.2832 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 15, 2008 M/s Ahuja Distributor and another .....Petitioners VERSUS M/s Sarup Tanneries Limited, Jalandhar and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Mandeep S. Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners are aggrieved against the direction passed by the trial Court on an application filed by the respondents, requiring the petitioners to place on record the photostat copies of the documents, which they want the plaintiff-respondents to produce. The petitioner-defendants filed an application for directing the plaintiffs to produce the documents listed in the application. Most of these documents are letters alleged to have been written by the petitioners to the respondent-plaintiffs. The case of the respondents is that no such letters are available on the record and certain other CIVIL REVISION NO.2832 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 2 }: documents, like credit notices, which the plaintiffs claim to be with the respondents are not in their possession. As per the respondents, the original must be in possession of the petitioner-defendants. Notice of this application was issued. The petitioners filed a preliminary objection saying that it is misuse of the process of the Court. It is further alleged that application is neither properly verified nor supported by an affidavit. Plea is that the respondents are intentionally and willfully avoiding to produce these documents in the Court. It is also pointed out that this application is indicative of dis- obedience to the orders passed by the Trial Court as the directions were issued by the Court for the respondents to file an affidavit in detail in regard to each and every document. It is observed by the Trial Court that the petitioners want the respondents to produce letters, which the respondents have addressed to the defendant- petitioners or are the cash discount given by the credit notes in favour of the petitioners by the respondents. The plea of the respondents was limited to this extent that photo copies of these documents, which the petitioners want the respondents to produce must be available with the petitioners and they be directed to produce the photostat copies of these documents so that they are able to file copies of those which are in their possession and custody. This prayer was opposed by the petitioners only on the ground that this application was filed to delay the disposal. During the course of arguments before me, the counsel for the petitioners made submissions on some different lines. As per the counsel, this application was moved under the provisions of CIVIL REVISION NO.2832 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 3 }: Order 11 Rule 14 CPC. Rule 14 provides that it shall be lawful for a Court at any time during the pendency of a suit to order production of any such document in his possession or power relating to any matter in question as the Court shall think right. It is further provided that the Court may deal with such document when produced in such manner as shall appear just. The plea further was that the prayer for this direction to the respondents to produce documents was sought to enable the petitioners to exhibit these documents while cross- examination of the relevant witness was to be conducted. The application for discovery of documents can be made under the provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 CPC. This provision enables a party to apply to the Court for an order directing any other party to suit to make discovery on oath of the documents, which are or have been in his possession or power relating to any matter in question therein. If any such application is filed and after hearing the Court can either refuse or adjourn the same and if satisfied that such recovery is not necessary or that it is not necessary at that stage, then the Court may make such order either generally or limited to certain classes of documents as may, in its discretion, be thought fit. The proviso under the said Rule lays down that discovery shall not be ordered 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. The discovery of documents by a party as such can be sought under the provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 CPC. This application, if and when filed, would be subject to the orders in the discretion of the court as is noticed above. Order of production of documents under CIVIL REVISION NO.2832 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 4 }: Rule 14 is quite different from an order of discovery under Rule 12. Though earlier, it was viewed that order of production can only be made after an order of discovery has been made but this view was subsequently dissented and it is held that the Court can not disallow the party to produce documents only on the ground that the party did not ask for discovery. The object of this procedure is two fold. It is to secure that all material documents are disclosed by putting the opposite party on oath as to the documents in his possession. It is also to put an end to what might otherwise lead to protracted trial. It is to save expense and time and to shorten litigation. Rule 12 leaves a clear discretion with the Court to make such order either generally or limited to certain classes of documents as may in its discretion is thought fit. It is noticed that no such application was moved by the petitioners under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC. The application concededly was moved under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, which apparently leaves a power with the Court to order production by any party on oath of such documents in his possession or power relating to any matter in question as the Court shall think right. The power is further left with the Court to deal with such documents when produced in such manner as shall appear just. Before directing production of documents, the Court is to satisfy itself whether these are relevant for the purpose of disposing the suit and is not to enable the party to cause a roaring enquiry to find out information. Interrogatories which are really in the nature of cross-examination, such as question to test the credibility will not be allowed. Further Rules 12 and 14 are CIVIL REVISION NO.2832 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 5 }: independent of each other. Under Rule 14, the Court acts in its own motion and can act on application of a party. Order granting or refusing production are discretionary order which are generally not to be interfered in revision. [See M/s National Rice and Dal Mills Rajpur and others Vs. Suraj Singh, AIR 1975 HP 12]. The prayer of the petitioners for directing the respondents to produce photo copies of the documents, which they want the respondents to produce, has been accepted. This appears to have been done with aim to identify those documents which the petitioners wish the respondents to produce. Apparently, no final order has been passed by the Court to deal with such documents. Even if such documents are needed for the purpose of cross-examination or for being proved by the witness during his cross-examination, then discovery of these documents and production thereof apparently can not be sought by utilizing the provisions of Order 11 Rule 14 CPC. If the petitioners intend to rely on certain documents and want to prove the same, original of which are not in their possession, then perhaps, they have to move an application for permission to lead secondary evidence. It is to be noticed that direction to produce the documents is already made. Through the impugned order, the respondents have only required the petitioners to produce photo copies of those documents which it wants the respondents to produce. This prayer was opposed by the petitioners on the ground that it is to delay the proceedings. No other ground was urged before the Trial Court as have been advanced before this Court. The Court has simply allowed the application of the respondents, seeking the petitioner to place on CIVIL REVISION NO.2832 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 6 }: record the photo copies of documents. No issue concerning the provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 or Rule 14 would, thus, arise for determination. These rules otherwise leave very wide discretion, ofcourse judicial one, for the Courts to pass any order which may appear to the Court to be just. The judicial discretion exercised by the Court would not call for any interference when viewed in the background that this Court is generally not to interfere in the order of the Court in either granting or refusing production of the documents. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. May 15 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE