P L D 1963 (W (PLP)

"The present Revision arises out of a suit the declaration that three cheques executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant were without consideration and issued under misrepresentation, threat and coercion. The defendant in order to meet the case of the plaintiff made an application under Order XI, rule 14, C. P. C. for summoning the following documents :- (1) The Agreement of Partnership and all correspondence between the plaintiff and said Mr. Allah Baksh ; and (2) Accounts of fish trawler and its business with the plaintiff."' So far as the first document is concerned, Mr. Rizvi the learned Advocate for the plaintiff opposite-party, stated that as his client himself is relying upon these documents he has no objection to produce them if called upon by the Court. The question now only is whether the production of the accounts of fish trawler business by the plaintiff was material to the issue between the parties. The learned Judge disposed of this questions in these words "After going through the pleadings and hearing the Advocates, the documents called for appear to be irrelevant for decision in this suit. Hence the application is rejected." I have already stated above that Mr. Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff opposite-party has stated that he has no objection to the production of agreement of partnership and correspondence between the plaintiff and one Allahbux. Without commenting upon the question as to how far the production of accounts of fish trawler business of the plaintiff would substantiate the conten tion of the defendant-applicant that Rs. 19,000 were agreed to be paid by the plaintiff opposite-party as profit from the said trawler business to the defendant, I am of the view that the production of the accounts of the fish trawler business was material to the issue between the parties.

2. Mr. Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff opposite party contended that the application under Order XI, rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code was not maintainable inasmuch as the defendant applicant should have made an application under Order XI, rule 12 for discovery of the documents in possession of the plaintiff. It was only after an application under Order XI, rule 12, C. P. C. was made, it is contended, that Order XI, rule 14, would come into operation. In this connection reliance has been placed on a Division Bench case of the Patna High Court in the case of Baidyanath and others v. Bholanath Roy and others ((1923) 76 I C 991). It has been held in that case that an order for the production of documents under Order XI, rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code can be made only after an order directing discovery of documents has been made under rule 12, Order XI of the Code. I would respectfully disagree with the conclusion of the learned Judges in that case. I am of the view that the provision of rule 14, Order XI is not dependent on rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code-I' In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Advocate it would be useful to reproduce rule 14, Order XI. It runs as under :- "It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath, of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right ; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just." The words "at any time during the pendency of any suit" occurring in the above rule are wide enough to give power to the Court to order the production by any party upon oath of such of the documents that may be in his possession. Moreover, rule 12, Order XI relates to the discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his possession and not to the production of the documents. The objects underlying rule 12 and rule 14 of Order XI are quite independent. Under the former rule only a discovery of the documents in possession of a party has to be made by him while in the latter the documents themselves have to be produced.

3. For the reasons given above, I would allow the applica tion in Revision and order the parties to bear their own costs. K. B. A./A. H. Petition accepted.