ITC Ltd Revision Sets Aside Document Order

Authority: Calcutta High Court, Court No.7 (Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai)

Order Date: 27 July 2026

Parties: Petitioner/defendant No.13 ITC Ltd vs. Respondent No.1 Dalhouise Holdings Ltd and others.
Underlying suit: Title Suit No.607 of 2026 filed by the opposite party seeking declaration and injunction.
Procedural history: An ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction was granted on 30 April 2026 and extended repeatedly. The petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the injunction; the opposite party filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC seeking production of certain documents, notably a Syndicate Agreement dated 6 October 1961.
Trial court order: On 1 June 2026 the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore, directed the petitioner to produce the original and copies of the documents without allowing any written objection or affidavit and without recording satisfaction that the documents were in the petitioner’s possession or relevant to the suit.
Advocates' submissions: Senior Advocate S. N. Mookherjee (petitioner) argued the order violated mandatory conditions of Order 11 Rule 14. Senior Advocate C. A. Sundaram (opposite party) contended the document produced by the petitioner was a typed copy lacking signature and differed from the version relied upon in the plaint.

The Court reiterated that Order 11 Rule 14 requires (a) proof that the documents are in the possession or power of the party against whom the order is made, and (b) that the documents relate to the matter in dispute.
Citing precedents: India Foils Ltd. vs. The 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal (AIR 1972 Cal 308), Basanagouda vs. Dr. S. B. Amarkhed & Ors. ((1992) 2 SCC 612), Amulyadhan Hait vs. Dinesh Hait & Another (2019 SCC Online Cal 6496), and Padam Sen & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1961 SC 218), the Court explained the required discretion and consequences of non‑compliance.
Observations: The trial court did not afford the petitioner an opportunity to file an affidavit or written objection, nor did it record any satisfaction of possession or relevance, rendering the order “palpably bad” and untenable under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The order dated 1 June 2026 directing production of documents under Order 11 Rule 14 is set aside to the extent it allows such production.
Both parties are directed to file an affidavit in opposition or a written objection to the application under Order 11 Rule 14 within two weeks from the date of this order.
The learned Trial Court shall thereafter fix a date for hearing the application under Order 11 Rule 14 at its convenience.
No costs are awarded. The revisional application (C.O. 2397 of 2026) is disposed of.
An urgent certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.

Topics: Civil Procedure, Document Production, Court Order