Can the court reject an application for the production of documents because documents are not between plaintiff and defendant?

 The trial Court has also rejected the plaintiff's application on the ground that the documents in question are not between the plaintiff and the defendant, but they are documents between the officials of the defendant. I have no doubt that this observation of the trial Court is merely an obfuscation inasmuch as the correspondence between the officers of the defendant can certainly be relied upon by the plaintiff if according to the plaintiff the same may prove or support the plaintiff's case. It is obvious that the Order 11 Rule 12 does not in any way limit the discovery of documents, in the case of letters to the letters exchanged only by the parties to the suit. The requirements of this provision are limited only to the fact that the documents should be or should have been in the possession or power of a party to the suit, and that the same should relate to any matter in question in the suit. Clearly the letters in question satisfy these requirements and, therefore, the order for discovery thereof cannot be refused on the ground that the letters are not directly between the parties to the suit. {Para 7}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Civil Revn. Appln. No. 1254 of 1985

Decided On: 14.06.1991

 Kamalia Brothers and Co. Vs. State of Gujarat

Print Page

Can the court reject an application for the production of documents because documents are confidential?

The trial Court has upheld the contention of the defendant in respect of a simple plea that the letters are confidential letters and confidential letters cannot be produced and discovery in respect thereof cannot be granted. The trial Court has not assigned any cogent and or logical reason for upholding this bare plea. It must be borne in mind that the trial Court was conscious of the petitioner's plea that merely by labelling the letters in question as "Confidential Letters" the same cannot be excluded from the purview of Order 11, Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court was also aware that the petitioner had specifically contended that no specific or particular privilege in respect of the letters in question had been claimed by the defendant, and that there was no claim and or contention on the part of the defendant that disclosure would be prejudicial to public interest and or to national security and or' opposed to public policy and or detrimental to the interest of the defendant in any other manner. In fact there is no reason (for the confidentiality) disclosed by the defendant nor any explanation and or clarification offered in respect of the nature of confidential letters. {Para 5}

6. Under the circumstances it is clear that the bare plea that the letters are It is, therefore, obvious that the letters" cannot be upheld.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Civil Revn. Appln. No. 1254 of 1985

Decided On: 14.06.1991

 Kamalia Brothers and Co. Vs. State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Y.B. Bhatt, J.

Citation : AIR 1992 Guj 138, MANU/GJ/0147/1992

Print Page