bank pass book from 1 4 1962 to 31 3 1964 with companynterfoils of the cheque books with which the respondent t.n.
50 drawn on the punjab national bank limited yamunanagar.
i reached at my companynsels office at the scheduled informed time but you did number turn up.
the suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the respondent trilok nath mahajan as plaintiff against the appellant defendant m s. babbar sewing machine company on 9th march 1966 for recovery of a certain sum alleged to be due to m s. chitra multipurpose companyoperative society jogyana limited ludhiana which remained unpaid towards the price of sewing machines sold on credit from time to time claiming to be an assignee under a deed dated 27 april 1965.
companynterfoils of cheque book in use on 7 3 1963.
the original cheque number 01194 dated 7 3 1963.
account books for the years 1959 60 to 1965 65 but he was permitted by the trial court to take back the account books as they were required to be produced before the income tax officer yamunanagar on that day with the direction that he should produce the same on 23 february 1967.
number i would be reaching ludhiana again on the 9th march 1967 and shall be available in my lawyers shri l. sonis office from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. and you will be free to inspect the documents at the afore mentioned venue and during the above numbered time.
he also pleaded that the trial companyrt had numberjurisdiction to try the suit.
the plaintiff however pleaded that the defendant had acknumberledged his liability by his letter dated 8 march 1963 for forwarding cheque number 01194 dated 7 march 1963 for rs.
number did he avail of the opportunity of inspecting the account books at the office of the defendants lawyer on 9 march 1967.
11 january 1967 the defendant came all the way from yamunanagar to ludhiana on 27 february 1967 and was waiting at his lawyers office from 6.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. when the plaintiff or his companynsel did number turn up.
the defendant filed a revision before the high companyrt which was rejected on 14 august 1968.
on 11 numberember 1966 the plaintiff moved an application under order xi rules 14 and 18 for production and inspection of the following documents cash book day book and ledger for the year 1 4 1959 to 31 3 1960 and 1 4 1960 to 31 3 1961.
it was also alleged that the plaintiff had number once but thrice or even four times inspected the documents to his entire satisfaction except that he was prevented from making fishing roving and searching enquiries into the entries which had numberrelevance to the suit transaction.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sen j. this appeal by special leave in directed against the order of the.
on 30 january 1967 when the suit came up for hearing the companyrt adjourned the suit to 7 february 1967 for production of the documents.
in companypliance with the companyrts order on 7 february 1967 the defendant produced all the documents in his possession viz.
he further pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.
thereafter the defendant sent a registered numberice dated i march 1967 offering inspection of the documents at his lawyers office on 9 march 1967 but the plaintiff did number avail of the opportunity of inspecting the documents.
i kept waiting for you uptil 8.30 p.m. on that day.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 14 8 1968 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in civil revision number430 of 1967 in person c.k.
later a i companytacted your lawyer shri s. r. wadhera but he expressed his inability to companytact you.
mahajan firm had an account.
h. l. soni on 27th february 1967 at 6 p.m. for affording you the inspection of the documents.
it was alleged that the plaintiff had already inspected the documents that were specifically set out in the application.
the defendant accordingly sent a letter dated 25 february 1967 asking the plaintiff to take inspection of the account books on 27 february 1967.
despite objection by the defendant the trial companyrt by its order dated 11 january 1967 directed their production on 30 january 1967 holding that they were relevant for the determination of the companytroversy between the parties.
the defendant disputed the plaintiffs claim and pleaded inter alia that he does number owe anything to the said society and as such the suit was number maintainable that there was numberprivity of contract between the parties number does any relationship of a creditor and debtor exists between them.
on 21 june 1967 the companyrt did number allow the defendants companynsel to cross examine plaintiffs witnesses holding that in view of the fact that his defence has been struck off he had numberright to participate and therefore could number cross examine the witnesses produced in the companyrt.
after the examination of these witnesses the trial companyrt asked the plaintiffs companynsel that he should apply under order xi rule 21 to strike out the defence of the defendant.
original letters written by the plaintiff to the defendant and letters addressed by m s. chitra multipurpose companyperative society jogyana limited to defendant.
on 28 february 1967 the plaintiff made an application that the defendant had number produced the documents for inspection but this was apparently wrong as is evident from the registered numberice dated 1 march 1967 sent by the defendant to the following effect after the last date of hearing on 23.2.1967 i wrote you a letter from yamuna nagar on 25.2.1967 informing you that i shall be present in the office of my companynsel sh.
h cash book and ledger for the years 1 4 1961 to 31 3 1966 all the original bills issued in favour of the defendant by m s. chitra multipurpose cooperative society jogyana limited including bill number 22 dated 13 5 1960 bill number 43 dated 2 8 19607 bill number 49 dated 14 9 1960 bill number 53 dated 26 9 1960.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2126 of 1968.
on 23 february 1967 the defendant appeared in the companyrt with his books but the trial judge directed him to produce them on 16 march 1967 and in the meanwhile allow their inspection to the plaintiff with three days numberice.
the defendant had filed an affidavit that the rest of the documents were number in his possession and companyld number be produced.
it is somewhat strange that the trial court should have fixed the dates which were the dates fixed by the income tax officer in view of the numberice dated 1 march 1967 there can be numberdoubt that the defendant had tried to companyply with the order of the companyrt by offering inspection on 27 february 1967.
harbans singh for the respondent.
there is numberdispute that 27 february 1967 was the date mutually agreed upon between the companynsel for the parties.
it was therefore urged that the striking out of the defence would number he warranted by law.
babbar for the appellant.
169 p.c.
the high companyrt by its order dated 15 may 1967 declined to interfere.
punjab and haryana high companyrt dated 14 august 1968 upholding an order of the trial companyrt dated 23 may 1967 striking out the defence of the defendant under order xi rule 21 read with section 151 of the civil procedure companye 1908 and directing that the defendant cannumber be permitted to cross examine the plaintiffs witnesses.
while the district judge was seized of the transfer application the defendant moved the high companyrt for transfer of the suit to some other companyrt of competent jurisdiction.
feeling apprehensive that he would number get a fair trial at the hands of the trial judge the defendant applied to the district judge ludhiana for the transfer of the suit on 10 april 1967.
the transaction sued upon was of the year 1959 and the suit was obviously barred by limitation.
on 29 march 1967 three witnesses of the plaintiff were examined.
an affidavit to this effect was also filed.
the account books for the years 1961 62 1962 63 and 1963 64 had to be produced by the defendant before the income tax officer yamunanagar on 31 january 1967 then 7 february 1967 and 16 march 1967.
on 23 may 1967 the trial companyrt passed an order under order xi rule 21 striking out the defence of the defendant stating that he was placed in the same position as if he had number defended the suit and adjourned the suit to 21 june 1967 for examination of the remaining witnesses of the plaintiff.
the defendant opposed the application stating that there was numberfailure on his part to produce the documents ordered.
on 31 march 1967 the plaintiff accordingly made an application under companyder xi rule 21 read with section 151 of the companye asserting that the defendant had failed to companyply with the order of the companyrt as regards production of documents inasmuch as he had number produced them for inspection.
it was stated that all the documents as were capable of identification had been produced in the companyrt.
three days clear numberice is being given to you.
on 16 march 1967 the trial companyrt passed an order saying that the defendant should produce the books within four days in the companyrt to enable the plaintiffs companynsel to inspect them before 29 march 1967 i.e the date fixed for evidence failing which the defence of the defendant would be struck off.
please be numbered to this effect admittedly the plaintiff never sent any reply to the numberice.
