A subpoena cannot compel irrelevant bank records to investigate unspecified assets in a partition suit.

The appellants, plaintiffs in a partition suit, challenged the dismissal of their application seeking subpoenas to Indian Overseas Bank officials to produce records concerning a locker, the deceased Hemachandran’s salary and loans, his terminal benefits, and the first appellant’s compassionate appointment.

The Single Judge dismissed the application, finding that the documents were unconnected to the suit and that requiring bank managers to attend with the records would be harassing.

The appellants filed this appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 CPC read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The appeal was brought under Order XXXVI Rule 1 CPC read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The Court’s reasoning rested on the relevance of the requested documents to the suit and whether summoning them would serve a purpose in resolving the dispute.

The judgment cites no further statutory provision or precedent governing the production of documents.

The Court found that the suit was for partition and that the appellants had not shown how the requested salary, loan, terminal-benefit, appointment, and locker records bore on the claim before it.

The Court also noted that there was no prayer concerning terminal benefits and no specific case that definite movables were kept in the locker; summoning the locker security register would therefore serve no purpose.

It accordingly upheld the view that the requested records were not relevant to the suit.

It dismissed the appeal without costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.