A defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to produce voluminous documents merely to prepare its defence.

The suit between the parties had been pending since 1993.

The defendant filed an application at Exhibit 165 seeking production by the plaintiff of voluminous account books and records, including ledgers, cash books, journals, sales and purchase registers, and stock registers for specified financial years.

The application was filed after approximately 18 years of pendency and remained pending for more than four years.

The Trial Court rejected it, finding that the defendant had not shown why production of the documents was necessary for its defence and that the application had been filed to delay the trial; it also imposed costs of ₹10,000 payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Porbandar.

The defendant challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Trial Court committed a manifest error of law or jurisdictional error in rejecting the defendant’s application for production of documents under Exhibit 165.

Whether the defendant could compel the plaintiff to produce voluminous documents and account records merely to assist the defendant in preparing or establishing its defence.

Whether the Article 227 petition was liable to be dismissed with additional costs as an attempt to delay the trial.

The Court applied the limited and supervisory nature of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, holding that interference is not warranted absent a manifest error of law or jurisdictional error.

It further applied the principle that a party seeking production of documents in the possession of the opposite party must demonstrate that the particular documents are necessary for a proper adjudication and that, without them, an effective defence cannot be made; a party cannot compel its opponent to produce voluminous evidence merely to prepare its own case.

The Court also recognised that unexplained and belated procedural applications filed after prolonged pendency may properly be rejected where they are intended to delay the proceedings.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the Trial Court had considered the age of the suit, the substantial delay in filing and prosecuting Exhibit 165, and the voluminous nature of the documents sought.

The defendant had merely listed extensive categories of the plaintiff’s accounting records and had not established why each document was indispensable to its defence.

The Court held that the plaintiff could not be required to produce evidence for the purpose of enabling the defendant to prepare its defence; the defendant was required to lead its own evidence.

Further, if the plaintiff failed to produce documents necessary to substantiate its own claim, that failure could operate against the plaintiff on the merits.

In these circumstances, the Trial Court’s rejection of the application disclosed neither a manifest legal error nor a jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227.

It held that the defendant’s belated application for production of voluminous documents was intended to delay the trial and that the plaintiff could not be compelled to produce evidence merely to assist the defendant’s defence.

In addition to the ₹10,000 costs imposed by the Trial Court, the High Court directed the petitioner to pay ₹50,000 to the respondent-original plaintiff for delaying the disposal of the trial.