Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 968 (PNJ)

Naresh Kumar v. Sukhda Gas Service

2004-08-26

HEMANT GUPTA

body2004
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 27.11.2001 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the application for production of accounts books by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed. 2. The petitioner has filed a suit for dissolution of partnership firm and for rendition of accounts. Defendant No. 2 has filed a separate suit for injunction. In the revision petition arising out of an order declining ad interim injunction application in a suit for injunction filed by defendant No. 2, this Court vide order dated 21.9.1994 directed defendant No. 2 herein to keep proper books of account and photo copy of the books of account was required to be submitted before the trial Court by 7th of each month. The petitioner herein was also in revision petition aggrieved against the order refusing to appoint the receiver. 3. Vide order dated 1.5.2001, the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein was allowed and the revision petition filed by defendant No. 2 herein was dismissed. Vide the aforesaid order, this Court has appointed the receiver. Special Leave Petition against the said order was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on 31.8.2001. 4. The petitioner herein filed an application in a suit for rendition of accounts for directing the defendants to produce the books of account for the period from the year 1983-84 to the year 2000-2001. In the reply to the said application, it was the stand of defendants No. 1 and 2 that the account books upto February/March, 1994 are not available with him rather the same are with the petitioner. 5. The learned trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff wants to prolong the matter by filing one application after the other and that the application is not maintainable. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, I am of the opinion that in view of the stand of the respondent that records prior to February/March, 1994 is not available with him, no direction can be issued for production of such account books. Defendant No. 2 was directed to keep proper books of accounts in a separate suit for injunction filed by him. It is the grievance of the petitioner that photo copy of the books of accounts have not been furnished before the learned trial Court. It may be so. Defendant No. 2 was directed to keep proper books of accounts in a separate suit for injunction filed by him. It is the grievance of the petitioner that photo copy of the books of accounts have not been furnished before the learned trial Court. It may be so. However, that is not relevant for determination of the controversy in the present revision petition. 7. Admittedly, the application for production of documents was filed when the case was fixed for further evidence of the plaintiff. Such application for production of documents has been rightly found to be not maintainable. Order 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with production of documents which contemplate that original documents are to be produced at or before the settlement of issues. It is not the case of the plaintiff that such documents are required for the purposes of cross-examination of the witnesses of the defendant. Therefore, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court declining the application filed by the petitioner for production of documents so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.