BISWAJIT BASU, J. - (1.) The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of defendant No. 1 in a suit for damages and is directed against the order No. 38 dated July 21, 2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalyani, Dist. Nadia, in Title Suit No. 02 of 2014 whereby the learned Trial Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'The said application' in short).
(2.) Mrs. Lahiri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Judge without appreciating the scope of Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 of the Code has dismissed the said application on the ground that the relevancy of the documents in respect of which the petitioner has prayed discovery cannot be determined at this stage. She submits that in view of the nature of allegations made in the plaint, the petitioner will not be able to defend the suit unless the plaintiff is directed to make discovery on oath in accordance with Order 11 Rule 13 of the Code, in respect of the documents mentioned in the schedule appended to the said application. She further submits that to make an order of discovery it is sufficient if the documents would be relevant for the purpose of throwing light on the matter in controversy. In support of her such contention she places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri. M.L. Sethi v. Shri. R.P. Kapur, reported in AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT 2379.
(3.) Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party submits that the plaintiff has to prove his own case, therefore, according to him the duty casts upon the plaintiff to establish his claim in the suit by producing cogent evidences be it oral or be it documentary, and the petitioner is entitled to take inspection only of those documents on which the claim of the plaintiff is founded. Mr. Mitra, by referring to paragraph 28(X) of the written statement submits that the petitioner admittedly has taken access to his official laptop but he is again demanding production of the said laptop by the said application. He concludes by submitting that the learned Trial Judge has rightly dismissed the said application on the ground that the plaintiff is duty bound to prove his own case to get a decree in his favour. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on record. ;