S.A.K. Chinnathambi Chettiar vs G.S. Murugan

Ramaprasada Rao, J.—The learned subordinate judge, on an application made by the plaintiff directing the 16th defendant in the action to produce certain account books which admittedly relate to the affairs of an incorporated company, though the private limited company was not a party to the suit, ordered the same on the ground that these are documents which can be deemed to be in any event in his power and custody as he is the managing director of the said company and, therefore, Order XI, Rule 14 , CPC would enable him to give the direction. I am unable to agree. Order XI, Rule 14 is for the production of documents by a party to a suit at the request of another party to the suit. It is not in dispute that the account books and the documents called for are in the custody of the 16th defendant not in his personal capacity. But they should, in the eye of law, be deemed to be in the custody of companies duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, which are distinct entities and treated as such. This aspect has been overlooked by the lower court. The learned subordinate judge was, however, prompted to direct the production of the said documents apparently on the ground that the documents should be considered to be in the possession or power of the 16th defendant. I have already said that these documents relate to the affairs of entities which are distinct and separate from the 16th defendant. The purpose and intendment in the production of such documents appear to be for cross-examining the 16th defendant who is still in the box on the evidence spoken to by him already in the witness box. Order XI, Rule 14, Civil Procedure Code, however, cannot be pressed into service to achieve that object. Whatever processes and modes otherwise than Order XI, Rule 14, Civil Procedure Code, are available to the respondent, it is not for me to set out. I am, however, inclined to think that there are certain prescribed processes in law by which the production of the documents called for from a company can be sought. The limited question with which we are concerned in this civil revision petition is whether such production of documents can be secured from third parties by pressing into service Order XI, Rule 14, Civil Procedure Code. If authority is required, Mr. T.R. Srinivasan invited my attention to a decision in Hadley v. McDougall, (1872) L.R. 7 Ch. App. 312. where Sir W.M. James L. J. observed :

" We cannot make an order for production of documents on a person who is not a party to the suit. The plaintiff may, if so advised, amend the bill, so as to make the defendant set out all the entries himself, and he can then get the production of the originals at the hearing by means of a subpoena duces tecum. "

The modus operandi adopted by the petitioner to call for the documents in question to cross-examine the witness in the box is misconceived. This having been overlooked by the lower court, the learned judge exceeded his jurisdiction in calling for the records in exercise of powers under Order XI, Rule 14, Civil Procedure Code. The order is vitiated by a wrongful exercise of jurisdiction. I am, therefore, constrained to interfere u/s 115.

The order of the lower court is, therefore, set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. But there will be no order as to costs.