ORDER
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.
1. This order shall dispose of an application (IA 135/95), filed on behalf of the defendants, under Order XI Rule 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’) for the discovery and production of the documents.
2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff Sh. Dharampal Arora, in his capacity as sole proprietor of M/s Dharampal Arora, Stock & Share Brokers, has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs.50,00,000/- against the defendants averring that defendants 2 & 3 are partners or proprietors of defendant No.1 and that the defendants were dealing in buying and selling of shares with the plaintiff and at times through plaintiff prior to 1989 till 1992. It is stated that the defendants were taking and giving the
deliveries of the shares through the plaintiff and settling all the monetary transactions with the plaintiff. It is alleged that the defendants were also dealing in forward trading in specified shares with the plaintiff. It is stated that the defendants earned huge profit in the share business through plaintiff before 1992 and both the parties opened mutual current account because there had been reciprocal dealings in respect of the above said business between the parties prior to 1989 till 1992. Both the parties had very good business relations during the above said period
and the accounts between the parties were finally settled and cleared on 23.8.91 when a cheque for Rs.1,03,188/- was given by the plaintiff to the defendants and the same was duly encashed by the defendants. It is stated that as per the books of accounts maintained by the staff of the plaintiff a sum of Rs.33,59,809.70 is due against the defendants for the period from 3.8.91 to 27.11.92. It is stated that the above said amount due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendants has not been paid by the defendants inspite of the repeated requests and demands. It is further averred that as
the defendants are not paying the above said amount which is due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendants intentionally and deliberately,the defendants are also liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum as per usage and
custom of the market being money transaction. As per the case of the plaintiff on the date of the filing of the suit an amount of Rs. 16,40,190.30 is payable by the defendants to the plaintiff on account of interest. Thus in all, as per the case of the plaintiff, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the plaintiff including the amount of principal as well as interest.
3. Since the defendants failed to pay the amount payable and due to the plaintiff, the plaintiff got served a legal notice dated the 2nd February, 1995 but despite service of legal notice the defendants have not cared to pay the above said amount which as per the case of the plaintiff is due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendants and hence the suit. It has been prayed by the plaintiff that a decree for a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- alongwith costs and pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
4. The suit(Suit No.986/95), filed by the plaintiff,came up for hearing for the first time before the learned predecessor of this Court on 24.4.95 and it was directed that suit summonses be issued to the defendants. The
defendants, after the receipt of the suit summonses, instead of filing written statement have filed the above mentioned application(IA 135/95) under Order XI Rule 12 & 14 read with Section 151 CPC for the discovery and
production of documents mentioned therein. Notice of the application was given to the plaintiff who has filed a detailed reply strongly opposing the prayer made by the defendants for the production and discovery of documents. In the reply, filed on behalf of the plaintiff, it is stated that the application which is devoid of substance be dismissed with costs. The defendants/applicants have also filed a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
5. In so far as the above mentioned application (IA135/95) is concerned I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The privilege vested in a party to the suit by the provisions of Order XI Rule 12 & 14 CPC, as per settled law, is not intended to enable him to cause roving inquiry to fish out information which may or may not be relevant for the disposal of the suit. However, the parties seeking discovery or production of the document need not specify the Court that the document in question is
admissible as evidence in the suit. It would be sufficient to show that the contents of the document would through light on the subject matter of the suit. Unless these basic requirements are met the above said provisions of the CPC are likely to be utilised for harassing the other party instead of helping in for proper adjudication of the dispute in the case. Again law is well settled that an order under Rule 14 can be made if two pre-conditions as contemplated by Rule 14 are satisfied, namely, that the document in question must be in the possession or power of the party against whom the
order is made and secondly the document must relate to the matter in question in the suit.
6. I will now examine the request of the defendants/applicants in the light of the above settled legal position with reference to the document(s) sought to be produced. The defendants/applicants vide above mentioned application have requested for the production of the following documents:-
i) Trading Hall Diary, known as ‘chopri’ which is issued by the Delhi Stock Exchange to every Member in which all the transactions of purchase and sale of shares are entered into.
ii) Daily Transaction Sheet also known as ‘Sauda Match’which is also issued by the Delhi Stock Exchange to every Member for specified shares and non-specified shares and every Member who has transacted business is required to submit the same to the Delhi Stock Exchange at the end of the trading session.
iii) Register of transactions which is to be maintained by every Broker as per the statutory requirements of the Delhi Stock Exchange.
iv) Contract Note which a Member of the Delhi Stock Exchange is required to issue to a client regarding purchase/sale of shares within 24 hours of the contract.
v) Details of ‘Badla Transactions’ and ‘Margin Deposits’.
vi) Details of the bills as mentioned in Annexure’C’ annexed with the application.
As per the averments made in the plaint the plaintiff is a Member of the Delhi Stock Exchange and the dealings of the parties and their business was sale and purchase of shares. In the above background it cannot be stated that the above mentioned documents, sought to be produced by the defendants do not relate to the matter in question in the present suit. Moreover, the plaintiff in the reply filed to the above said application has nowhere stated that the above said docuemnts, sought to be produced by the defendants/applicants are not relevant or germane in so far as the
present proceedings are concerned. On the contrary the plaintiff alongwith the reply filed by him has filed a number of copies of the bills in question, sought to be produced by the defendants/applicants. The plaintiff, in the reply, has admitted the procedure for maintaining Daily Transaction Sheet known as Sauda Match, register of transactions and the Contract Note. Out of the documents, sought to be produced the plaintiff, in reply it has been has stated that the Daily Transaction Sheet (Sauda Match) had been filed in Delhi Stock Exchange and the same are available in that office. In
respect of the other documents it has not been stated by the plaintiff in the reply that they are not in his power and possession.
7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, during the course of arguments, has placed reliance on a decision of Patna High Court in case Thakur Prasad Vs. Md. Sohayal and others reported as AIR 1977 Patna 233. I have gone through the above decision of the Patna High Court. The same relates to serving of interrogates under Order XI Rule 1 CPC and thus in no way helps the cause of the plaintiff/non-applicant in so far as the above mentioned application is concerned.
8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant during the course of arguments stated that the record prior to 23.8.91 has no relevancy as the controversy between the parties relate to period from 23.8.91 to November, 1992. The above said argument, advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant, decidedly is not without substance because as per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff himself has stated that the accounts were finally settled and cleared upto 23.8.91 between both the parties when a cheque for Rs.1,03,188/- was given by the plaintiff to the
defendants and the same was duly encashed by the defendants. The amount of Rs.33,59,809.70 stated to be due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff also relates to period commencing from 23.8.91 to 27.11.92 and as such the record relating to the above said period only is relevant in so far as the present proceedings are concerned.
9. In view of the above discussion, the application (IA 135/95) filed by the defendants/applicants is partly allowed and the plaintiff is directed to produce the following records/documents for the period from 23.8.91 to 27.11.92:-
i) Trading Hall Diary also known as ‘chopri’.
ii) Register of Transactions.
iii) Contract Notes in respect of transactions with the defendants.
iv) Details of ‘Badla’ transactions and ‘Margin Deposits’ ; and
v) Bills referred to in Annexure’C’ other than those already filed by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint and alongwith the reply dated the 2nd January, 1996.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.
11. Nothing stated hereinabove shall amount to expression of any opinionion the merits of this case by this Court.
The application (IA 135/95) stands disposed of in above terms.