VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh dismissing the application filed by the defendant- petitioners under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the orders for issuing summons dated 19.8.2004 and 21st August, 2004 hereby the office clerk of the defendant-petitioners was directed to produce the record as required by the plaintiff-respondent and further order dated 4.9.2004 whereby Shri M.K. Aggarwal, the official of the applicant-defendants was summoned through bailable warrants.
(2.) THE petitioners filed the present application on the plea that the order summoning the witness was obtained by the respondent-plaintiff in routine manner by suppressing the material facts and without disclosing that an earlier application moved by the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC seeking a direction to the defendants to produce the record mentioned therein was dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2003. It was the case of the petitioners that after dismissal of the said application, the plaintiff-respondent by means of the summons sought production of the documents which have already been denied.
(3.) THE application was contested by the plaintiff-respondent on the plea that the provisions of Orders 11 Rules 12, 14 and 15 of the CPC are independent to each other. Rule 15 applies only when the opposite party claims inspection and copies of documents. It was the case of the plaintiff-respondent that as the petitioners have referred to certain documents in the pleadings, therefore, it was open to the respondent to ask for inspection and production of those documents. It was the case of the petitioners that as the plaintiff-respondent has applied for discovery and production of the documents, the original of which, were in their possession, the same was rejected by observing that the plaintiff has to prove his own case. Thereafter an application under Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved for summoning and attendance of the witnesses by claiming that the plaintiff has an independent right to summon and examine the witness to prove his case which could not be allowed in view of earlier order.;