COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MEGHALAYA ALLOYA PVT. LTD.

CRP 13/2016 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, defendant of Money Suit No. 89 of 2013 has challenged the order dated 16.7.2015 whereby the learned court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rul e 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The opposite party herein as plaintiff instituted Money Suit No.89 of 20 14 in the court of learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati against the p resent petitioner as sole defendant praying for a decree of Rs.53,43,576/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit. In paragraph- 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff stated that on 23.3.2009 and 26.3.2009, plaintiff issued two cheques in favour of the defendant for a sum of Thirty Five lakhs in all and the aforesaid transaction was disclosed in various bank statements of t he defendant. In paragraph-4 of the plaint, it is further disclosed that confirm ation of letter was issued for the financial year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010- 2011 for completion of formalities of income tax. Even by the end of the financi al year of 2010-2011, a sum of Rs.39,34,807/- was due to the plaintiff from the defendant including interest and which was duly confirmed by the defendant. Acco rding to the plaintiff though the transactions arising from the aforesaid two ch eques were reflected in the books of accounts and the income tax statement of th e defendants described in the schedule to the application and so if those docume nts are directed to be produced by the defendants, in that event, the transactio ns would be duly proved and the plaintiff would be entitled to get a decree. Def endant by filing objection stated that disclosures would amount to making their personnel financial affairs public and this will amount to undue harassment and embarrassment to him. Plaintiff having instituted the suit for liability to make their claim by leading their own evidence and they have no right and authority to call for personal account of the defendant. The learned trial court after co nsidering the rival contention of the parties passed the impugned order holding that the plaintiff had disclosed the cheque number and the alleged amount of lo an extended by him to the defendant and so a document sought to be called for ca nnot be described to be beyond pleadings. These documents are in the custody of the court being their own books of account and records of income tax return and so there is no harm in allowing the application for production of the said docum ents by the defendant. Accordingly, the application was allowed and the defendan t was directed to produce the documents to the court. I have heard Mr. B Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. VK Chopra, l earned counsel for the opposite party. I have perused the plaint, the applicatio n filed under Order XII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. Having gone through the aforesaid docum ents, it does not appear that the finding of the trial court as to relevance of the documents for the purpose of the proper adjudication of the matter in disput e is perverse. The documents are definitely necessary for deciding the correctne ss or otherwise of the claim made by the plaintiff and the transaction are discl osed in paragraph- 3 and 4 of the plaint. The documents are neither unnecessary nor irrelevant.

Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost.

Interim order stands automatically vacated.