R.S. Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved against the direction passed by the trial Court on an application filed by the respondents, requiring the petitioners to place on record the Photostat copies of the documents, which they want the plaintiff -respondents to produce.
(2.) THE petitioner -defendants filed an application for directing the plaintiffs to produce the documents listed in the application. Most of these documents are letters alleged to have been written by the petitioners to the respondent -plaintiffs. The case of the respondents is that no such letters are available on the record and certain other documents, like credit notices, which the plaintiffs claim to be with the respondents are not in their possession. As per the respondents, the original must be in possession of the petitioner -defendants. Notice of this application was issued. The petitioners filed a preliminary objection saying that it is misuse of the process of the Court. It is further alleged that application is neither properly verified nor supported by an affidavit. Plea is that the respondents are intentionally and willfully avoiding to produce these documents in the Court. It is also pointed out that this application is indicative of disobedience to the orders passed by the Trial Court as the directions were issued by the Court for the respondents to file an affidavit in detail in regard to each and every document. It is observed by the Trial Court that the petitioners want the respondents to produce letters, which the respondents have addressed to the defendant petitioners or are the cash discount given by the credit notes in favour of the petitioners by the respondents. The plea of the respondents was limited to this extent that photo copies of these documents, which the petitioners want the respondents to produce must be available with the petitioners and they be directed to produce the Photostat copies of these documents so that they are able to file copies of those which are in their possession and custody. This prayer was opposed by the petitioners only on the ground that this application was filed to delay the disposal.
(3.) DURING the course of arguments before me, the counsel for the petitioners made submissions on some different lines. As per the counsel, this application was moved under the provisions of Order 11 Rule 14 CPC. Rule 14 provides that it shall be lawful for a Court at any time during the pendency of a suit to order production of any such document in his possession or power relating to any matter in question as the Court shall think right. It is further provided that the Court may deal with such document when produced in such manner as shall appear just. The plea further was that the prayer for this direction to the respondents to produce documents was sought to enable the petitioners to exhibit these documents while cross examination of the relevant witness was to be conducted.;