- (1.) THE only point I have now been called upon to decide is : Should I or should I not, of my own motion, make an order upon the plaintiffs under section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code for discovery of documents and the like.
(2.) THE point arises in the following circumstances: on November 20, 1964, I rejected the defendant's petition dated November 7, 1964, (moved by his learned counsel, Mr. Banerjee), calling upon the plaintiffs to file a further and better affidavit of documents. So I did on the ground of the averments contained therein having been vague to a degree. At the same time, I felt that it might be a fit case where the Court should give appropriate directions suo molu under section 30 ibid. And I expressed myself so. Thereupon Mr. Kar, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted that in a suit inter parties no court could make an order suo motu and chat he had come that day only to meet the defendant's petition rejected by me, not the sort of order I was considering about. The former submission did not hold me. The latter one did. On the former submission, I observed: "it is, however, said that no court can pass an order suo motu. That, if I may say so with respect, is entirely wrong. It does not matter that the suit is inter parties, a point Mr. Kar stresses. Every suit is inter parties as a matter of course. Even so, section 30 is there and the Court without any application from either party may record a suitable order for discoveries, affidavits of documents and the like. " On the latter one, I observed: "mr. Kar says-and very rightly too-that he has come here today to meet mr. Banerjee's application and not this sort of an order from the Court. May be, after I have heard Mr. Kar further I may not "be inclined to invoke my powers under section 30. " Again, "in any event, I do not make up my mind finally one way or the other. Mr. Kar is entitled to be heard ; so is Mr. Banerjee on this point. " And I postponed the hearing of the matter, so that I might have had the benefit of Mr. Kar's assistance-as also Mr. Banerjee's-on the propriety of applying section 30 ibid to the facts here, in so far as the section prescribes powers of the court to make an order of its own motion.
(3.) THIS is how the matter has come up before me. And I have had the assistance I was looking forward to, of Mr. Kar. and Mr. Banerjee, to both of whom I express my indebtedness.;