Mr. Inderpreet Singh Gulati vs. Vikas Arora

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Inderpreet Singh Gulati, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,51,935/- against the respondent, Vikas Arora, who was allegedly a regular purchaser of electronic goods. The petitioner claimed to have maintained a running account, but the outstanding amount remained uncleared, leading to the suit. The suit had reached the stage of final arguments. The petitioner had filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC seeking production of documents, including audited balance sheets, GST 2A documents for 2018-2019, and income tax returns with debtor-creditor lists for the period 2014-2021. The petitioner claimed these documents were necessary for inspection and cross-examination. The Trial Court dismissed this application on May 17, 2023, prompting the present petition.

Held

The High Court held that the petitioner's application for production of documents was rightly dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The Court found the application to be "very sketchy" and lacking in explanation regarding the relevancy and necessity of the requested documents. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to elucidate why such an application was not moved at an earlier stage of the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, as the plaintiff, had the onus to prove his case by substantiating the accounts he claimed to have maintained and could not use such an application to conduct a "self-styled inquiry" into the adversary's accounts. The Court agreed with the Trial Court that merely being "uncertain or not very sure" did not grant the petitioner an automatic right to move such an application, especially at the "fag end of the case." Consequently, the Court found no merit in the present petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC for production of documents, specifically the GST 2A for 2018-2019, audited balance sheets, and income tax returns from 2014-2021? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that these documents were essential for inspection and cross-examination, and thus crucial for the just adjudication of the suit. The petitioner had issued a notice for production of these documents, which remained unheeded. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through the Trial Court's order, contended that the application was sketchy, lacked explanation regarding the relevancy and necessity of the documents, and was moved at a very late stage of the proceedings. The respondent argued that the petitioner could not embark on a self-styled inquiry into the respondent's accounts and had to prove his own case based on the accounts he claimed to have maintained.