Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 27

Order XI, rule 6

It is considered that objections on the ground of privilege should be specifically included in this rule and should not be left to the residuary words "any other ground1". Necessary change in the wording has been proposed2.

4. Cf. RSC (Revision) 1962, Order 26, rule 4.

5. As to disallowing incriminating questions, see Meenakashi Sundaram v. Radhakrishna, AIR 1960 Mad 184.

Order XI, rule 74

1. Order XI, rule 14 provides that it shall be lawful for the court "at any time during the pendency of any suit" to order the production by any party, upon oath, of all documents in his possession, etc. One question that has arisen is, whether an order under this rule can be passed before an application for discovery is made under Order XI, rule 12. The majority view is, that it can be so ordered. This is based on the words "at any time"1-2-3. But a contrary view also seems to have been taken4 in one case. The language does not seem to require any change, in view of the majority opinion.

2. The question whether an express provision excluding production of documents regarding matters of State should be inserted, has been considered, and the relevant provision in the R.S.C. Revision5 has been noted. It is unnecessary to insert any such provision, there being no controversy on the subject under this rule. The privilege as to inspection can be claimed even after production6.

6. Ram Hari v. Niranjan, 50 CWN 845.

7. Srinivas v. Election Tribunal, Lucknow, AIR 1955 All 251.

8. P. Varalakshmamma v. P. Bala, AIR 1958 AP 157.

9. Baidyanath v. Bholanath Roy, AIR 1923 Pat 337 (338), (Das & Kulwant Sahai n.).

10. R.S.C. Revision (1962), Order 24, rules 13 to 15.

11. K.V. Ramachari v. Krishnamachari, AIR 1924 Mad 486. Generally as to privilege claimed with reference to production, see Nagarnmai v. Alamelu, AIR 1957 Mad 401.

Order XI, rule 15

1. Order XI, rule 15 entitles a party to give notice for inspection, etc., of documents "to which a reference has been made" in the pleadings or affidavit of the opposite party. Now, the question has arisen whether documents which are merely entered in the list annexed to the plaint are covered by this rule. One view is, that rule 15 does not apply to such documents, as they are not documents to which a "reference" is made in the pleadings1-2-3-4.

2. But a contrary view has been taken in other cases. According to this view, the list is a part of the plaint for the purposes of this rule. This view has, been taken by Bombay, Madras and Lahore High Courts5-6-7-8.

In fact, in the Madras case there is an observation, that probably one of the reasons for requiring the plaintiff to furnish a list with the plaint was to enable the defendant to apply for inspection.

A clarification on the subject is proposed.

1. Chandmull v. Dhanraj, AIR 1920 Cal 416 (Greaves J.).

2. Gopal v. Syed, AIR 1944 Pat 177.

3. Nagpur Glass Works Ltd. v. Onama Glass Works Ltd., AIR 1938 Nag 239 (Vivian Bose J.).

4. Braj Bahari v. Arun Coomar, ILR (1953) 2 Cal 309 (Das and Guha Ray JJ.).

5. Ramdayal v. Narhury, (1894) ILR 18 Born 368.

6. Khetsidas v. Narotamdas, (1908) ILR 32 Born 152.

7. Ramnathan v. Annamalai, ILR 55 Mad 421: AIR 1931 Mad 825 (826) (Curgenven J.).

8. Janaki Das v. Kaushalya Devi, AIR 1943 Lah 207 (208) (Beckett J.) (obiter).

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys