KOKJE, J. - (1.) MR. N. M. Lodha, the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners submits that the Department has changed its counsel and, therefore, the new counsel should be heard. Since the matter was fully argued earlier by Shri Lodha and is now only fixed for rehearing, I do not consider it proper to permit change of counsel at this stage.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner and perused the record. Three applications for production of documents in the suit were decided by the learned trial court vide its impugned order dated 16. 11. 1995. The applications dated 23. 11. 1994, 13. 2. 1995 and 15. 3. 1995 are the similar applications for production for certain record in a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents State. The copies of all the documents, the originals of which were sought to be produced from the State by the revision-petitioner, are already on record. The only question is whether the original record should have been ordered to be produced by the learned trial Court. In the impugned order, the only reason for not asking the production of these documents is that the plaintiff-revision-petitioner has not shown relevance of these documents to the satisfaction to the court. The learned trial court has observed that it has to be positively and specifically disclosed that the correspondence would be of some assistance to the court in deciding the issues involved in the case. The learned trial court has opined that whatever documents have been produced, they are sufficient to throw light on the issues and the internal correspondence was not necessary to be produced. Mr. N. P. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the revision-petitioner submits that applications have been disposed of without considering the reasons supplied for the production of documents by way of a rejoinder to the reply to the application under Order 11, Rule 4 CPC filed by the defendants on 7. 8. 1995. In para No. 3 of the rejoinder, it has been stated that the documents sought to be produced shown at item Nos. 4 to 15 in the application are the public documents and on their production, the case of the plaintiff-petitioner will be proved automatically. These documents cannot be withheld on the excuse of their being internal correspondence. The documents relate to the work in dispute and there is no legal hinderance in their production. This explanation coupled with the copies of the documents already brought on record is sufficient to establish the relevance of the documents to the suit. At the stage of production of documents, the court is to reach a prima facie conclusion about the relevance of documents and that is not the stage where a party could be shut out on the ground that the documents if produced would not be relevant. If the correspondence is admitted to be existing and the copies of such documents are already on record, then it would be unjust, and improper to shut out a party from getting such documents produced before the court. In this connection, reliance may be placed on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L. Rs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by L. Rs. (1) wherein it has been observed that a litigant who withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of praying fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.
(3.) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I am of opinion that the learned trial court has committed a grave error in not exercising its jurisdiction to allow the applications filed by the petitioner under Order 11. Rr. 12 and 14 read with Sec. 151 CPC. It has committed a material irregularity in not exercising the jurisdiction to decide the applications. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The application under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 read with Sec. 151 C. P. C. is allowed. The documents sought to be produced shall be produced before the learned trial court. In view of the loss of time in these proceedings, the learned trial court shall expedite the decision of the suit. There will be no order as to costs. . ;