1 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4224 OF 2009. 1.Smt.Kesharbai W/o Nandlal Dhoot, Age 72 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o Gangapurkar Gin Compound, Station Road, Ahmednagar. 2. Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot, Age 57 years, Occ.Industrialist, R/o Gangapurkar Gin Compound, Station Road, Ahmednagar. 3. Rajkumar Nandlal Dhoot, Age 54 years, Occ.Industrialist, R/o Gangapurkar Gin Compound, Station Road, Ahmednagar. 4. Pradeep Kumar Nandlal Dhoot, Age 50 years, Occ.Industrialist, R/o Gangapurkar Gin Compound, Station Road, Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Indian Airlines Corporation Ltd. having its office at Airline House, New Delhi. 2. Capt. S.N.Singh, Age 55 years, Occ.Service, R/o Operation Department Indian Airlines, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. 3. Union of India, through its Secretary, 2 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. 4. Director General of Civil Aviation, Having its office at Safdargunj, Airport, New Delhi. 5. National Airport Authority of India, through its Chairman, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. ... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1328 OF 2011. Deepak S/o Anandram Jawaharani, Age 50 years,Occ.Business, R/o 109, Sindhi Colony, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Indian Airlines Corporation Ltd., Having its Office at Airline House, New Delhi. 2. Capt. S.N.Singh, Age 56 years, Occ.Service, R/o Operation Department Indian Airlines, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. 3. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. 4. Director General of Civil Aviation, Having its office at Safdarjung, Airport, 3 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. New Delhi. 5. National Airport Authority of India, through its Chairman, Indira Gandhi International Airport,New Delhi. 6. Jyoti D/o Anandram Jawaharani W/o Sunilkumar, Age 40 years, Occ.Household, R/o 179, Palshikar Colony, Indore. 7. Jimatrai Thakomal Pohani, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Burhanpur (M.P.). ... Respondents. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1320 OF 2011. Deepak S/o Anandram Jawaharani, Age 50 years,Occ.Business, R/o 109, Sindhi Colony, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Indian Airlines Corporation Ltd., Having its Office at Airline House, New Delhi. 2. Capt. S.N.Singh, Age 56 years, Occ.Service, R/o Operation Department Indian Airlines, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. 3. Union of India, through its Secretary, 4 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. 4. Director General of Civil Aviation, Having its office at Safdarjung, Airport, New Delhi. 5. National Airport Authority of India, through its Chairman, Indira Gandhi International Airport,New Delhi. 6. Jyoti D/o Anandram Jawaharani, W/o Sunilkumar, Age 40 years, Occ.Household, R/o 109 Sindhi Colony, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.185 OF 2011. 1. Anjali W/o Late Deepak Munot, Age 43 years, Occ.Household, R/o Ahinsanagar, Opp. Akashwani, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. 2. Shreyas S/o Late Deepak Munot, Age 20 years, Occ.Student, R/o Ahinsanagar, Opp.Akashwani, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. 3. Miss.Shraddha D/o Late Deepak Munot, Age 25 years, Occ.Student, R/o Ahinsanagar, Opp.Akashwani, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. 4. Smt.Amita W/o Rajendra Munot, Age 65 years, Occ.Household, R/o Ahinsanagar, Opp.Akashwani, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. 5 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. Petitioner No.1,3 and 4 through its G.P.A. Holder Shri Arun Rajendra Munot, Age 53 years, Occ.Business, R/o as above. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Indian Airlines Corporation Ltd., Having its Office at Airline House, New Delhi. 2. Capt. S.N.Singh, Age 56 years, Occ.Service, R/o Operation Department Indian Airlines, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. 3. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. 4. Director General of Civil Aviation, Having its office at Safdarjung, Airport, New Delhi. 5. National Airport Authority of India, through its Chairman, Indira Gandhi International Airport,New Delhi. ... Respondents. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.186 OF 2011. Smt.Archana W/o Late Arun Joshi, Age 54 years, Occ.Household, R/o Pratap Nagar, Shahanurwadi, 6 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Indian Airlines Corporation Ltd., Having its Office at Airline House, New Delhi. 2. Capt. S.N.Singh, Age 56 years, Occ.Service, R/o Operation Department Indian Airlines, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. 3. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. 4. Director General of Civil Aviation, Having its office at Safdarjung, Airport, New Delhi. 5. National Airport Authority of India, through its Chairman, Indira Gandhi International Airport,New Delhi. 6. Miss.Anuja D/o Arun Joshi, At present Anuja W/o Samir Dorle, Age 33 years, Occ.Household, Originally R/o Pratapnagar, Shahanurwadi, Aurangabad, At present Shanghai recquet club and Apt. Apartment GBI, Racquet Club drive -555, Jinfeng Road, Huacao town, Minhang Dist4rict, Shanghai, P.R. China-201107. 7. Miss. Apurva D/o Arun Joshi, At present 7 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. Apurva W/o Amod Pandit, Age 28 years, Occ.Household, Originally R/o Pratap Nagar, Shahanurwadi, Aurangabad, At present 34, Shailley Circle, East Windsor, New Jersey-08520. 8. Abhishek S/o Arun Joshi, Age 25 years, Occ.Student, Originally R/o Pratap Nagar, Shahanurwadi, Aurangabad. At present 74, Barnescourt # 308, NCFARLAND MIDERISE, ESOONDIDO, Stanford University, Stanford, State California-94305. ... Respondents. Note :1. The Respondents Nos.6,7 and 8 are the Ori.plaintiffs, they are added as Respondents, being not available for signature. 2. The original plaintiff No.5 is dead and Petitioner and Respondents Nos.6 to 8 being legal heirs represent her estate.). ... Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.J.V.Deshpande, advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.N.S.Choudhari, advocate for Respondent Nos.3,4 and 5. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 21.07.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 8 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioners are original plaintiffs have filed a suit for compensation. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed applications (a) for production of documents; (b) for inspection of documents. The trial Court rejected both the applications on the ground that they are filed at the belated stage and that earlier the application for interrogatories were also filed. While rejecting the application for inspection of documents, the Court relied on the provision of Order XI Rule 15 of the C.P.C. Aggrieved by the orders rejecting the aforesaid applications, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions. 4. Mr.Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court while rejecting the application for inspection of documents has solely relied on Order XI Rule 15 of the C.P.C. and has rejected the same on the 9 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. ground that the application has been filed at the belated stage and the documents of which the inspection was sought are not filed by the defendants and not referred in the pleadings. According to the learned counsel, the inspection of the documents even if not referred in the pleadings can be sought in view of Order XI Rule 18(2) of the C.P.C. 5. The learned counsel further contends that even the application for production of documents has been rejected solely on the ground that it is at a belated stage and the application is not filed on oath without considering the relevancy of the said documents. 6. Mr.J.V.Deshpande, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 support the order and submit that earlier also an application was filed seeking interrogatories which was considered by the Court on its merits and whatever interrogatories were directed by the Court, the same have been supplied. When the 10 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. inspection of the documents sought were not referred in the pleadings at all, the plaintiff is not entitled for the inspection of the same. The learned counsel further contends that even the petitioners have not resorted to the provisions of Order XI Rule 18 of the C.P.C. while filing the said application. The learned counsel further contends that as far as application for production of documents is concerned, the same is also rightly rejected. The plaintiffs had led the evidence and even in the cross-examination have admitted that they relied on the documents mentioned in the list as well as Mohta Commission report. The applications were filed only to protract the litigation. 7. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the order impugned so also the provisions referred. 8. The provisions of Order XI Rule 14, Order 11 Rule 15 and Order 11 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. reads as under : 11 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. Order XI Rule 14 - Order XI - "1. Discovery by interrogatories. - In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties, and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer: Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for that purpose: Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross- 12 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. examination of a witness. Rule 14 - 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. Rule 15- Inspection of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavits.- Every party to a suit shall be entitled [at or before the settlement of issue] to give notice to any other party, in whose pleadings or affidavits reference is made to any document, [or who has entered any document in any list annexed to his pleadings] to 13 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. 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; and any party not complying with such notice shall not afterwards be at liberty to put any such document in evidence on his behalf in such suit unless he shall satisfy the Court that such document relates only to his own title, he being a defendant to the suit, or that he had some other cause or excuse which the Court shall deem sufficient for not complying with such notice, in which case the Court may allow the same to be put in evidence on such terms as to costs and otherwise as the Court shall think fit. Rule 18. Order for inspection. - (1) Where the party served with notice under rule 15 omits to give such notice of a 14 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. time for inspection or objects to give inspection, or offers inspection elsewhere than at the office of his pleader, the Court may, on the application of the party desiring it, make an order for inspection in such place and in such manner as it may think fit: Provided that the order shall not be made 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. (2) Any application to inspect documents, except such as are referred to in the pleadings, particulars or affidavits of the party against whom the application is made or disclosed in his affidavit of documents, shall be founded upon an affidavit showing of what documents inspection is sought, that the party applying is entitled to inspect them, 15 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. and that they are in the possession or power of the other party. The Court shall not make such order for inspection of such documents 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." 9. Perusal of order XI Rule 14 of the C.P.C., it is manifest that the said provision does not bar an application to be filed after the issues are framed. Rejection of the application solely on the ground that the same is belatedly filed without considering the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced will not be in tune with the purpose and purport of the provision. Apart from the reason that application is filed at belated stage and it is not filed on oath, there is no other reason stated for rejection of the application for production of documents. In such circumstances, the order impugned can not be sustained. 16 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. 10. So far as the order on application for inspection is concerned, the Court has relied on the provisions of Order XI Rule 15 of the C.P.C. The provision of Order XI Rule 15 deals with the documents which are referred to in the pleadings. Apart from the said provision, the provision of order XI Rule 18 also deals with the inspection of documents and sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of Order XI deals with inspection of those documents which are not contemplated U/o XI Rule 15 of the C.P.C. While dealing with the question about the inspection of documents as contemplated U/o XI Rule 18(2), the Court is required to be satisfied that the party applying is entitled to inspect them and that they are in possession or power of the other party and the Court also has to record its objective satisfaction that the said documents are necessary either for disposing fairly the suit or for saving costs. It does not appear that such an exercise has been done while rejecting the application for inspection. 11. In light of above, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The learned trial 17 W.P.No.4224/09 with connected W.Ps. Judge shall consider the applications filed by the petitioners for production of documents and inspection of the documents afresh. The plaintiff is at liberty to file such affidavit as is necessary so also the Respondents are at liberty to file their say to the same. 12. The Rule is made absolute in above terms and directions. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp422409