Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur
AIR 1972 SC 2379, [1972] 2 SCC 427
JUDGES: Kuttyil Kurien Mathew and P. Jaganmohan Reddy
Date of Decision: 19-07-1972
FACTS:-
The respondent filed an application seeking permission to sue as forma pauper under Order XXXIII Rule 6 of the Code. Both the Government and appellant have filed objections stating the respondent was not a pauper. The appellant also filed an application for discovery of documents from the respondent in support of his averments. The trial court directed the respondent to discover on affidavit the following documents like account books, Bank statements and others etc. in support of his application. The respondent did not- file the affidavit on the prescribed date but filed applications for time which were dismissed by the Court and the Court thereafter dismissed the application for permission to sue in form pauper is as there was no evidence to show that the respondent was a pauper. As a result, the respondent challenged the above two orders in revision before the High Court. The Court set aside both the orders resulting in appeal before the Hon’ble Court by the appellants.
ISSUES:-
- Whether the trial court is entitled to order discovery of documents relating to the pauperism?
- Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to decide application under Order XXXIII Rule 6 of the Code?
JUDGMENT:-
At the outset, the respondent submitted that order for the discovery of documents is not permissible in proceedings under Order XXXIII of the Code. Originally, the suit commences from the moment as soon as the application to sue in forma paupers under Order XXXIII of the Code is presented. The Court pointed out that the trial court had jurisdiction to order for discovery of documents and also to charge penalty under Order XI Rule 21 of the Code, if party fails to do so. Whenever any court makes an order for discovery of documents, the opposite party is bound to make affidavit listing all the documents which are in his possession or in the possession of other person. If a party wants inspection of documents in the possession of the opposite party, he cannot inspect them unless the other party produces them. Thus, it is upon the discovery party to discover all the specific documents for inspection that will support deciding the matter.
The Court was also unable to uphold the High Court’s point of view as to the enquiry into the question whether the respondent was a pauper was exclusively a matter between him and the State Government and that the appellant should not be concerned with it. As per Order XXXIII Rule 6 of the Code, if court does not reject the application to sue as forma pauper, then the State Government and the opposite party may be called upon for receiving such evidences as the applicant may adduce in proof of his pauperism.
But the rejection of the application under Order XXXIII Rule 6 for time and the consequent dismissal of the petition under Order XXXIII as in the present case can rarely be considered as jurisdictional error even in its extended sense. Thereby, a distinction must be drawn between the errors committed by sub-ordinate courts in deciding questions of law which have relation to, or are concerned with, questions of jurisdiction of the said Court, and errors of law which have no such relation for the purposes of S.115 of the Code.
Under above observations, trail court has not made any error by refusing application to adjourn that attracts any illegality or jurisdiction error. Therefore, the appeal was admitted and impugned order passed by the High Court was set aside.
HELD:-
Hence, the trail court had jurisdiction to order discovery of documents to decide application under Order XXXIII Rule 6 of the Code.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
