Authority: Calcutta High Court, Civil Revisionary Jurisdiction, Appellate Side
Order Date: 23 July 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Late Amitava Khemka (deceased) and Smt. Geeta Khemka (petitioners) vs. Southern Avenue Rajeshwari Residents Welfare Association (respondent) and its office bearers.
- Original suit: Title Suit No. 41 of 2002 filed on 20 August 2002 for declaration and permanent injunction, seeking to declare the Special General Meeting of 9 July 2000 null and void and to challenge the functioning of the managing committee.
- During pendency, petitioners served a legal notice on 4 February 2009 demanding production of specific documents (notices, minutes, balance sheets, letters, etc., covering 1995‑2008) for inspection.
- Trial Court order dated 18 May 2009 directed inspection within 10 days and allowed plaintiffs to obtain certified copies at their cost.
- Defendants failed to comply; on 3 December 2009 the trial court struck off the defence under Order XI Rule 21 CPC for non‑compliance, without any application for such striking off.
- Defendants proceeded ex‑parte on 5 January 2010 and later filed an application under Section 151 CPC on 1 June 2011 to set aside the striking‑off order; this was dismissed on 13 July 2011.
- Defendants then filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC on 12 July 2011 seeking production of additional documents; plaintiffs objected, arguing lack of locus standi and irrelevance.
- Trial Court on 10 August 2011 allowed the application, directing production and stating non‑production could invite adverse inference.
- Petitioners appealed (CO 3434/2011) arguing the trial court erred in entertaining the Rule 14 application after the defence had been struck off and that the documents were irrelevant.
- Multiple authorities were cited: Babbar Sewing Machine Co. vs. Trilok Nath Mahajan (1978), Balmer Lawrie & Co. vs. Assam Brook Estates (1979), J.S. Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Damodar Rout (1987), among others, discussing the limits of Order XI Rule 21 and the inherent power under Section 151 CPC.
- The High Court identified four questions: (i) legality of the 3 Dec 2009 striking‑off order, (ii) whether lack of appeal barred interference, (iii) delay in filing CO 1032/2012 without condonation, and (iv) whether the Court could mould relief to ensure substantial justice.
- Detailed analysis of CPC provisions: Order XI Rule 14 (production of documents), Order XI Rule 21 (penalties for non‑compliance with interrogatories, discovery, inspection), and Section 151 CPC (inherent powers).
- The Court noted that non‑compliance with a Rule 14 production order does not attract the harsh penalty of striking off the defence under Rule 21; such penalty is limited to failure to answer interrogatories, discovery, or inspection.
- The Court rejected the view of a prior Indore Development Authority decision that allowed striking off for Rule 14 non‑compliance, emphasizing the correct legal position.
- The Court also held that the trial court’s orders were passed without giving the defendants an opportunity of being heard, violating natural justice.
- Limitation: The petition under CO 1032/2012 was filed after the prescribed period, but the Court emphasized that substantive justice outweighs procedural delay where a patent illegality exists.
Final Outcome
- The orders dated 3 December 2009 (striking off the defence), 13 July 2011, and 10 August 2011 are declared non‑est and set aside.
- The matter is remanded to the learned Trial Court to restart proceedings de novo from the stage before the 3 December 2009 order.
- The Trial Court is directed to conduct the proceedings expeditiously, fixing hearings for a minimum of two days a week and to conclude the suit within six months.
- The Registrar General shall list the matter for hearing in January 2027, with a compliance report to be sent by the Trial Court.
- No costs are awarded to either party.
- All parties must act on the server copy of this judgment downloaded from the official website.
Topics: Civil Procedure, Document Production