20/06/2020 CPC Case Brief - Raj Sarogi v.

American Express (discovery of documents) - Notes For Free

FEBRUARY 6, 2018 BY ADMIN

CPC Case Brief – Raj Sarogi v. American

Express (discovery of documents)
Spread the love

You can grab notes on other topics of CPC here.

Facts: During the pendency of the suit led by the appellant against the respondent, an
application was led by the appellant under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the defendant be called upon to make
discovery on oath of documents in sub-para (i), (ii) and (iii) of para 3 of the application and
produce the same in Court and on production the appellant be given inspection and copies
thereof. The appellant/plaintiff in the application asserted that the documents were
relevant for proper and effective adjudication of the questions involved in the suit and will
reduce the controversy between the parties. Document the discovery of which is asked;

Photocopy of the lease deed dated 2nd August, 1996 between the defendant and Mrs.
Kamla Vachani and Ms. Madhavi Vachani with respect to the property bearing No. S-51A,
Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.

Photocopy of the Supplementary Agreement dated 8th August, 1996 between the
defendant and Mrs. Kamla Vachani and Ms. Madhavi Vachani relating to property bearing
No. S-51A, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.

The application came up for consideration before learned Single Judge and he disposed of
the application.

notesforfree.com/2018/02/06/cpc-case-brief-raj-sarogi-v-american-express-discovery-documents/ 1/2
20/06/2020 CPC Case Brief - Raj Sarogi v. American Express (discovery of documents) - Notes For Free

Issue: Whether the application led by the appellant ful ls the conditions laid down by the
order 11 i.e. whether the documents, the discovery of which is requested are necessary for
the fair disposal and for saving costs, whether these documents are relevant or not?

Held: The high court found that the single leaned judge did not consider the question that
whether the discovery was or was not necessary at that stage of the suit or whether the
documents, the production of which was sought were or were not relevant. The court held
that as and when the application under Rule 12 of Order 11 CPC is led seeking discovery
of documents, the Court is required to exercise discretion, as envisaged in the said Rule,
which does not alter the principle relating to the production of documents but gives the
Court a discretion to refuse to direct discovery of documents when there is no reasonable
prospects of its being of any user or to limit the nature and extent of the discovery. The
discretion undoubtedly vested in the Court must be exercised judicially to further the
primary object of the Rules for production and discovery of documents

Consequently, the impugned order is set aside with direction that the application be
decided afresh in accordance with law. Needless to add that while deciding the application
afresh, it will be open for the respondents to urge all the points raised in their reply to
oppose the prayer made by the appellant including the one, which were noticed by learned
Single Judge in the impugned order.

You can grab notes on other topics of CPC here.

Spread the love

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

notesforfree.com/2018/02/06/cpc-case-brief-raj-sarogi-v-american-express-discovery-documents/ 2/2