Case Details

Citation(s)
1963 SLG 3474 = 1963 SLD 3474 = 1963 PLD 839
Sindh High Court
Civil Revision Application No. 576 of 1962, decided on 14th January 1963.  
Presented By: Inamullah, J  
S. A. Moulvi for Applicant.   S. H. Rizvi for
Respondent.   Date of hearing : 14th January 1963.

HAJI UMER-Applicant  

VERSUS

  ABDUL SATTAR-ARMED BHAI-Respondent  

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XI, rr. 12 & 14--- Provisions of rr. 12 & 14 independent of each other-Application under r. 12 for "discovery" of documents not necessary for effecting "production" of documents under r. 14 : [ (1923) 76 1 C 991 dissented from.]   Baidyanath and others v. Bholanath Roy and others (1923) 76 1 C 991 dissented from.  JUDGMENT   This is an application in Revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against an order of Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim, the learned Civil Judge, Karachi, dated the 22nd September 1962, refusing to order the plaintiff to produce certain documents. The facts giving rise to the present Revision briefly put are these :-   "The present Revision arises out of a suit the declaration that three cheques executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant were without consideration and issued under misrepresentation, threat and coercion. The defendant in order to meet the case of the plaintiff made an application under Order XI, rule 14, C. P. C. for summoning the following documents :-   The Agreement of Partnership and all correspondence between the plaintiffand said Mr. Allah Baksh ; and   Accounts of fish trawler and its business with the plaintiff."'     So far as the first document is concerned, Mr. Rizvi the learned Advocate for the plaintiff opposite-party, stated that as his client himself is relying upon these documents he has no objection to produce them if called upon by the Court. The question now only is whether the production of the accounts of fish trawler business by the plaintiff was material to the issue between the parties. The learned Judge disposed of this questions in these words   "After going through the pleadings and hearing the Advocates, the documents called for appear to be irrelevant for decision in this suit. Hence the application is rejected."   P L D 1963 (W I have already stated above that Mr. Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff opposite-party has stated that he has no objection to the production of agreement of partnership and correspondence between the plaintiff…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register