Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2054 (RAJ)

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Mahendra Gaur

2010-12-10

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2010
Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—By way of this writ petition, the petitioner M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited has beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 22.1.2010, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur allowed the application of respondent filed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC and permitted him to summon all the documents contained in the list annexed thereto. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent in person and perused the relevant material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that in a suit for specific performance of contract, recovery of dues and submission of accounts filed by the respondent, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Order 11 Rule 1, 5, 12 and 15 of CPC on 26.9.2006; the interrogatories filed under Order 11 Rule 4 CPC on 29.9.2006; and another application under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC also on the same day. The petitioner filed detailed reply to the said applications and having heard both the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed both the aforesaid applications and interrogatories vide order dated 3.5.2007. Thereafter the plaintiff filed a review application on 25.8.2007 and the same also stood dismissed on 23.10.2007. Learned counsel further canvassed that after expiry of the period of 26 months, the plaintiff again filed another application under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Rule 16 read with Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC on 19.1.2010 stating that earlier order dated 3.5.2007 was inconsistent with the provisions of Rule 5, 6 and 7 of Order 11, imploring the Court to direct the petitioner-defendant to produce the entire original personal and accounting record relating to the plaintiff since his appointment to his dismissal. Learned trial Court allowed the aforesaid application on 22.1.2010 directing the respondent-plaintiff to file a list of required documents within a period of three days and further directed the petitioner-defendant Corporation to submit the documents contained in the list filed by the plaintiff. Learned trial Court allowed the aforesaid application on 22.1.2010 directing the respondent-plaintiff to file a list of required documents within a period of three days and further directed the petitioner-defendant Corporation to submit the documents contained in the list filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel vehemently contended that once the application filed under Order 11 Rule 1, 5, 12 and 15 of CPC and application filed under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC were dismissed and the review application was also dismissed, then the respondent-plaintiff had no right to re-agitate the same issue before the Court and the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to allow the application on the same facts, which was totally contrary to the earlier order dated 3.5.2007. Hence, the impugned order being totally contrary to law deserves to be set aside. He has cited the following judgments in support thereof: (i) C.V. Rajendra & Anr. vs. N.M. Muhammed Kunhi AIR 2003 SCC 649 (ii) Satyadhyan Ghosal and others vs. Smt. Deorajin Debi and another - AIR 1960 Supreme Court 941 (iii) Ishwar Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Another - (2005) 7 SCC 190 4. The respondent appeared in person and himself argued the case. He defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper and contended that it did not warrant any intervention. 5. A very short point that arises for consideration in this petition is, whether an issue decided at an earlier stage against a party, the same can be allowed to be re-agitated by the Court at a subsequent stage in the same suit or proceedings? 6. In the case of C.V. Rajendra and another vs. N.M. Muhammed Kunhi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "as the question whether Section 15 of the Act bars the present eviction petition was decided against the appellants by the appellate authority at the earlier stage of suit and it was allowed to become final, it is not open to the appellants to re-agitate the same at the subsequent stage of the suit." 7. In the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal and others vs. Smt. Deorajin Debi and another (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, "the principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a Court, whether the trial Court or a higher Court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way, will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings." 8. In the case of Ishwar Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another (supra), the Supreme Court held that, "the principle of res judicata is a species of the principle of estoppel. When a proceeding based on a particular cause of action has attained finality, the principle of res judicata shall fully apply". 9. Adverting to the facts of the instant petition, it is noticed that first application under Order 11 Rule 1, 5, 12 and 15, interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 4 and application under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC were filed by the respondent-plaintiff and the same were dismissed by the learned trial Court on 3.5.2007. In these applications also, the respondent-plaintiff beseeched the Court to summon entire original personal and accounting record relating to the plaintiff since his appointment to his dismissal from the office of the petitioner-defendant. Aggrieved with the order dated 3.5.2007, the respondent-plaintiff filed a review petition on 25.8.2007 and that also stood dismissed on 23.10.2007. It is further noticed that after expiry of a period of more than 26 months, the respondent-plaintiff again filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Rule 16 and Section 151 CPC stating therein that the order dated 3.5.2007 was inconsistent with the provisions of CPC and the order passed in a review petition has caused failure of justice and requested the Court to direct the petitioner-defendant to produce the entire original personal and accounting record since the appointment to the dismissal of the plaintiff. this Court perused the list of documents being summoned by the respondent-plaintiff and found that in all 36 files have been requested to be summoned from the petitioner-defendant's office. The respondent-plaintiff is not found to have furnished necessary details and the particulars of he said files and documents. He has also not mentioned as to how were these documents and files relevant for the adjudication of the suit. The respondent-plaintiff is not found to have furnished necessary details and the particulars of he said files and documents. He has also not mentioned as to how were these documents and files relevant for the adjudication of the suit. Merely at the instant of the respondent-plaintiff, the whole file cannot be ordered to be summoned from the petitioner-defendant, unless the details and the necessary particulars are furnished by the plaintiff. The impugned order suggests that the learned trial Court went through all these facts and circumstances of the case but despite the fact being on record that the application of the same nature was dismissed earlier, he allowed the same application and directed the respondent-plaintiff to submit a list of the documents and thereafter directed the petitioner to produce them before the Court. firstly, for want of details and necessary particulars, no document can be ordered to be summoned under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC. Secondly, the party has to show and convince the court as to how the summoned documents are relevant to the facts of the case. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the learned trial Court had already dismissed the prayer of the respondent-plaintiff vide order dated 3.5.2007 and not only that, aggrieved with the order dated 3.5.2007, the respondent-plaintiff filed a review petition and that also stood dismissed. This order was never impugned in the higher Court and thus it attained finality. This is the second round of litigation between the parties on the same issue. The learned trial Court since had already decided the germane issue vide order dated 3.5.2007 and the order dated 3.5.2007 attained finality, it was not open to the respondent-plaintiff to re-agitate the same issue at the subsequent stage of the suit that too after expiry of more than 26 months. The learned trial Court, knowing it full well that the application on the same facts had already been dismissed by the Court on 3.5.2007, ignored this fact and contrary to the order dated 3.5.2007 allowed the application filed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC on the same facts arbitrarily. The impugned order is found to be against the judicial propriety and legal ethos. This order is found to be bad and contrary to the provisions of law, hence, the same deserves to be set aside. 10. The impugned order is found to be against the judicial propriety and legal ethos. This order is found to be bad and contrary to the provisions of law, hence, the same deserves to be set aside. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 22.1.2010 is set aside. 11. There shall be no order as to costs.