J.V. Gupta, A.C.J. - (1.) Raunak Ram, Plaintiff, filed the suit for declaration. When Madan Lal, Record-keeper, E.T.O. Office Muktsar was being examined, be claimed privilege as per the letter of the E.T.O. It was contended on behalf of the defendants-petitioners that his clients only wanted to produce the survey conducted by the Taxation Inspection which is not covered under section 48 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, (hereinafter called the Act), and therefore, no privilege could be claimed. According to the trial Court, the photostat copy of the same produced with the file shows that it is also signed by the assessee, so the document is covered under section 48 of the Act and, therefore, the witness was discharged. This order was passed on December 17, 1987. Immediately there after on December 22, 1987, an application was filed that earlier, a civil suit was filed by the defendants and there this very document was produced and exhibited as DW9/A, the photostat copy of which was produced in the present suit. That being so, the question of claiming any privilege with respect to the said document did not arise. However, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated February 8,1988, with the observations- "So, the Court cannot now allow the said application specially when the applicants have admitted that they could not brought to the notice of the Court the true facts of the case. So,the same is disallowed as the order dated 17.12.87. cannot be reopened." Dissatisfied with the said two orders, the defendants have filed this revision petition in this Court.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once this document with respect to which the privilege was being claimed had already been produced in the earlier suit, the question of claiming any privilege thereto in the present suit did not arise. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Sohan Lal v. Nasib Chand, 1978 P.L.J. 397 . According to the learned counsel, section 26 of the Act impliedly prohibits the department from giving even the certified copies of the documents produced by the assessee to a third person as doing so would amount to not treating the document as confidential. Certified copies also appears to have been given to the erstwhile partners of the firm. The production of the documents of the firm at the instance of one of the partner in a litigation between two or more partners of the firm itself does not appear to be covered by section 26 of the Act as the contents thereof are known to the parties and cannot be said to be confidental from them. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that one revision petition could not be filed to challenge the two orders and, therefore, it should be dismissed as such.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered opinion that the ratio of the above referred judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. It could not be disputed that this very document with respect to which privilege was being sought by the department had already been produced in a previous suit between the same parties. A photostate copy of that document was produced in the present suit. That being so, the question of claiming any privilege as such did not arise.;