C.R. No. 426 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 426 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: January 19 , 2009 Dalip Singh .. Petitioner v. Ranjit Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for directing the respondent-plaintiff for supply of the documents, referred to in the affidavit filed by him in his examination-in-chief for the purpose of cross-examination, was rejected. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 14,13,270/- on account of loan taken by the petitioner of Rs. 8,25,000/- as principal amount plus interest of Rs. 6,05,270/-. The same was based upon two writings dated 8.1.2004 and 10.2.2004 signed by the petitioner as acknowledgement of the loan. In the evidence led by the respondent-plaintiff, it was stated that the petitioner-defendant used to sell his agricultural produce on the shop of the respondent-plaintiff. As far as the acknowledgement of loan is concerned, receipts were produced in evidence. In addition to this, copies of ledger account and balance sheets were also produced. However, in the affidavit, it was stated that for the agricultural produce, which was brought by the petitioner- defendant at the shop of the respondent, form `J' was issued. The stand of the petitioner-defendant in the written statement was that in fact, he never signed the receipts as he had not taken any loan. The petitioner had been selling his agricultural produce at the shop of the respondent who is his nephew. The C.R. No. 426 of 2008 [2] respondent never paid total amount of sale consideration of the agricultural produce sold by the petitioner and in fact, he had to recover a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from him. The application was filed seeking following documents for the purpose of cross-examination of the respondent-plaintiff: “(i) Accounts books of the firm of the plaintiff pertaining to the account of defendant, if any, from the year 1993-2003. (ii) Account books of the firm of the plaintiff pertaining to 8.1.2004 to 10.2.2004. (iii) Carbon copies of `J' forms issued by the firm of the plaintiff to defendant as alleged by him. (iv) Bank pass books of the plaintiff and his firm pertaining to the year 2004. (v) Documents relating to the registration of the firm of the plaintiff as well as previous partnership and dissolution deed (d) if any.” The application was dismissed by the learned court below, being misconceived. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had referred to all the documents in his affidavit in examination-in-chief and to confront the respondent about the facts stated by him in his affidavit, the documents are necessary, as these are in possession of the respondent. The application was required to be filed as in the absence of those documents, the petitioner will not be able to lead evidence in defence. He further submitted that in case of failure of the respondent-plaintiff to produce the documents, which are in his possession, adverse inference can always be taken by the Court. Reliance was placed upon Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and others, AIR 1968 SC 1413 and Shri M. L. Sethi v. Shri R. P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the application filed by the petitioner was totally misconceived. The object was merely to delay the process. In fact, the effort of the petitioner is to make a fishing and roving enquiry. The suit filed by the respondent is simplicitor a suit for recovery on the basis of the documents/receipts signed by the petitioner. To prove the same, he has already led evidence proving the receipts, producing copies of ledger account, balance sheet, income-tax returns etc. The documents, which are sought to be produced by the petitioner pertaining to his accounts from 1993 to 2003 and other documents have no relevance with the point in issue. He further submitted that the respondent will not rely upon any other thing except the material produced C.R. No. 426 of 2008 [3] by him on record in the form of receipts and the documents produced in support thereof. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the documents, which are sought to be produced by the petitioner from the possession of the respondent-plaintiff shows that effort is to delay the process of trial, as the respondent may not be able to produce the old records starting from the year 1993 to 2004 and in the absence of the same, his stand would remain that he is unable to cross-examine the respondent-plaintiff. The suit is simply based upon two receipts dated 8.1.2004 and 10.2.2004 which have no relation with any other dealing between the parties. The effort of the petitioner by seeking the documents is to convert the case into the suit for rendition of accounts for the period from 1993 to 2004, as the stand in the written statement wherein is that full amount of sale consideration of the agricultural produce sold through the respondent was never paid and the petitioner is to recover a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondent but no such prayer or counter claim is there. Similar is the position with regard to other documents sought by him, such as account books of the respondent-firm from 8.1.2004 to 10.2.2004; copies of `J' forms issued; bank pass books of the respondent-firm for the year 2004 and also the documents relating to registration of the firm. All these documents have no relevance with the claim of the respondent in the suit. Considering the claim of the respondent-plaintiff in the suit and the fair stand taken before this court that the documents, the production of which is sought by the petitioner, are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the lis between the parties and the same shall not be relied upon by him in his evidence except the documents exhibited to prove acknowledgement of money, copy of ledger, balance sheet and income tax returns etc, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned court below. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge January 19 ,2009 mk