A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE question raised in this revision application is as to whether failure to comply with an order to give inspection of documents as ordered by the court would automatically entail the dismissal of the suit or the striking off the defence as the case may be? If not has the trial Court properly exercised its discretion in this case by refusing to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff? ( 2 ) THE opponent plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 170 of 1975 in the court of Civil Judge (JD) Una District Junagadh for recovery of the amount of goods sold and delivered. The petitioner defendant appeared in the suit and resisted the same. On 17/07/1979 the petitioner submitted an application praying that the plaintiff be ordered to give inspection of books of accounts mentioned in the application. The application was allowed. As contented by the petitioner defendant the order passed by the trial court was not complied with by the plaintiff that is to say the inspection of documents was given by the plaintiff to the petitioner defendant. Thereupon the petitioner defendant submitted an application Exhibit 3 2/01/1980 and prayed that under the provisions of Order 11 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. The trial court did not grant the application but gave a further opportunity to the plaintiff and directed that inspection of documents be given on or before 14/07/1980 ( 3 ) THE petitioner defendant preferred Civil Revision Application No. 1288 of 1980 in this Court. This Court (Coram: A. M. Ahmadi J.) at the preliminary hearing stage rejected the revision application and passed the following order on 25/08/1980 Rejected. But it would be open to make a similar application. Thereafter the petitioner defendant preferred an application Exhibit 4 9/10/1980 and prayed that the plaintiffs suit should be dismissed as the order of inspection documents was not complied with by the plaintiff. The trial court rejected this application and did not order to dismiss the suit but granted one more opportunity to the plaintiff to give inspection of documents on or before 23/02/1981 Against this order of the trial court the petitioner defendant has preferred the present revision application. The trial court rejected this application and did not order to dismiss the suit but granted one more opportunity to the plaintiff to give inspection of documents on or before 23/02/1981 Against this order of the trial court the petitioner defendant has preferred the present revision application. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the counsel for the petitioner defendant that the court had no jurisdiction to grant further time and the court ought to have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff inasmuch as there was failure on the part of the plaintiff to comply with the order to give inspection of documents. In other words the submission is that once there is failure to comply with the order to give inspection of documents the automatic result should be that the parts failing to comply with such order must suffer the consequences. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the counsel it would be appropriate to have a look at the provision of Order 11 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure which read as under. " 21 (1) Where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of documents he shall if a plaintiff be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution and if a defendant to have his defence if any struck out and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the Court for an order to that effect and an order may be made on such application accordingly after notice to the parties and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) Where an order is made under sub-rule (1) dismissing any suit the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. "the underlined words an order may be made on such application accordingly clearly shows that there is discretion with the court as to whether the suit of the plaintiff should be dismissed or the defence of the defendant should be struck out. The order of dismissal of the suit or that of striking off of the defence under the provisions of Order 11 Rule 21 of Code of Civil Procedure should not be ordinarily passed. The order of dismissal of the suit or that of striking off of the defence under the provisions of Order 11 Rule 21 of Code of Civil Procedure should not be ordinarily passed. This course may be taken only as a last resort in cases when it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the default committed by the party was wilful and contumacious. Even if the non-compliance of the order passed by the court is owing to negligence or inadvertence the penalty of striking out of the defence or that of dismissal of the suit should not be imposed unless it is proved that the default was deliberate and contumacious. The provisions of Order 11 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not impose the ultimate penalty automatically on failure to comply with the order to give inspection passed by the court. The penalty provided for in this provision may be imposed in clear cases where party refusing to give inspection of document is contumacious or is deliberately disobeying the order of the court with full knowledge thereof. In this connection reference may be made to the following reported cases:1 SHYAMLAL GURPRASAD V. GANPATLAL AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR 1954 MADHYA BHARAT 65. 2 BRAJA BEHARI SEN V. ARUN COOMAR BOSE REPORTED IN ILR (1953) 2 CALCUTTA 309. ( 5 ) IT was next contended by the counsel for the petitioner defendant that while rejecting the application the trial court has not given any reason whatsoever and therefore the trial courts order suffers from material irregularity and hence it should be quashed. No doubt the trial court has not given elaborate reasons. But it appears that the trial court carne to the conclusion that the opportunity given to the plaintiff earlier could not be availed of by him on account of the fact that revision application No. 1288 of 1980 was filed by the petitioner defendant in the High Court. I do not see that the reason given by the trial court is in any way irrelevant or improper. Moreover application Exhibit 49 given by the petitioner defendant does not even mention that the non-compliance of the order by the plaintiff was either wilful or contumacious. I do not see that the reason given by the trial court is in any way irrelevant or improper. Moreover application Exhibit 49 given by the petitioner defendant does not even mention that the non-compliance of the order by the plaintiff was either wilful or contumacious. In the absence of any such averment if the application in rejected even without giving any reasons I do not think that the trial court has committed any error in exercising the discretion by passing an order of rejection of the application preferred by the petitioner defendant. ( 6 ) IT is most unfortunate that in this case the full facts were not disclosed to the court either at the time of admission of the revision application or even at the time of final hearing. The counsel for the opponent placed on record a copy of an application given by the opponentplaintiff wherein it is stated that the plaintiff was ready to give inspection and the advocate of the other side was requested to give his convenient time and place for the purpose. It is further stated that the plaintiff was ready to show the books of accounts and the same were brought in the court premises. A copy in reply to application Exhibit is submitted on behalf of the petitioner defendant is also produced on record. Therein the petitioner defendant has stated to the effect that the inspection prayed for earlier was not given within time and there fore the suit should be dismissed as per the provisions of Order 11 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention of the petitioner defendant was that the application was for the dismissal of the suit and not for the inspection of documents and hence there was no question of taking inspection. There is no reference whatsoever to these exhibits in the revision memo. Had these facts been brought to the notice of the court earlier at the time of admission of the revision application in all probability the court would not have admitted the revision application at all and the suit of the year 1975 would not have been stayed till today. ( 7 ) IT would be futile to apportion the blame for the suppression of facts at this stage. ( 7 ) IT would be futile to apportion the blame for the suppression of facts at this stage. But it must be mentioned that whosoever wants to invoke the jurisdiction of this court must be very careful to see that not a single material fact is omitted to be mentioned before the Court. The legal profession is not a game of hide and seek. No litigant such less a lawyer should keep anything up the sleeves. Functioning of the courts and much more that of the High Court very much depends upon the candid behaviour of the members of the Bar. The High Court often relies upon the oral statements made at the Bar. If this faith reposed by the court in the members of the Bar is once shaken the very basis of the system of functioning of the High Court would be removed and it may become impossible to function. It is hoped that every one concerned would take care to see that such instances are not repeated or at any rate such instances are not repeated in future. In above view of the matter this revision application fails. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible same the suit is pretty old. Application dismissed. .