Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a suit filed by NTPC Limited (respondent-plaintiff) in December 2005 seeking specific performance of a contract for supply of 132 trillion BTU of Natural Gas for 17 years, based on documents executed in 2004. Reliance Industries Limited (appellant-defendant) filed its written statement on 31 October 2007, contending that there was no concluded contract and parties were merely negotiating. Issues were settled on 6 October 2008, and the plaintiff filed its affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 9 January 2009. On 2 February 2010, the defendant sent a notice for discovery and production of documents, and on 3 February 2010, filed a chamber summons seeking an order directing the plaintiff to disclose and give inspection of documents, including internal communications of NTPC officials between July 2004 and November 2005. The learned Single Judge dismissed the chamber summons. In appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the Division Bench held that the discovery sought was not permissible under Order XI Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it was sought after issues were settled and evidence had been led. The court noted that the defendant had already filed its affidavit of documents in January 2008 and the chamber summons was filed over two years later. The court found no error in the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Discovery and Inspection - Order XI Rule 1A CPC - Timeliness - The appellant-defendant sought discovery and inspection of documents after issues were settled and the plaintiff had filed its affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The court held that such discovery is not permissible under Order XI Rule 1A CPC as it would delay the trial and prejudice the plaintiff. (Paras 2-4) B) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Concluded Contract - The suit was for specific performance of a contract for supply of natural gas. The defendant contended that there was no concluded contract and parties were only negotiating. The court did not decide this issue but noted that discovery of internal communications of the plaintiff was not necessary for the defendant's defence. (Paras 2-3) C) Civil Procedure - Affidavit of Documents - Sufficiency - The plaintiff had already filed its affidavit of documents on 7 December 2007. The defendant's chamber summons for further discovery was filed on 3 February 2010, after a delay of over two years. The court upheld the Single Judge's refusal to order discovery. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-defendant is entitled to discovery and inspection of documents after issues were settled and the plaintiff had already filed its affidavit of evidence, particularly when the documents sought were internal communications of the plaintiff.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to grant discovery and inspection of documents.
Law Points
- Discovery and inspection
- Order XI Rule 1A CPC
- Specific performance
- Concluded contract
- Negotiation stage
- Affidavit of documents
- Chamber summons
- Letters Patent appeal
