THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PAWAN CASTINGS MEGHALAYA PVT. LTD.

CRP 15/2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.CHAUDHURY The opposite party herein as plaintiff instituted Money Suit No.94 of 2013 in th e Court of learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (Metro) in Money Suit No. 94 of 2013 against the present petitioner as sole defendant for realization of Rs.34,33,14 4/-. It is alleged in the plaint that the sole defendant had approached the plaintiff for advance of a sum of Rs.20,000,00/- and accordingly the plaintiff issued Ch eque No. 505537 dated 18.3.2008 for Rs.20 Lakhs of Punjab National Bank, Mahavir Market Branch at Guwahati. This loan was extended on the condition that interes t @12% per annum will be paid thereof. According to the plaintiff, this fact of extending loan by the plaintiff was disclosed by the sole defendant in his paper s submitted before the income tax department for the relevant financial years. As the loan was not refunded, plaintiff became entitled to a sum of Rs.25,28,01 5/- as on 31.3.2010 along with interest and became entitled to further interest @ 12% per annum for a further sum of Rs.9,05,099/-. Accordingly, the suit was in stituted for realization of Rs.34,33,144/- . The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and accordingly the suit has been fixed for step before hearing on behalf of the plaintiff. The pl aintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 8 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure asking for as many as four documents, namely, bank stat ements for the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2009, books of accounts including th e ledger journal for the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2013, income tax return fo r the year 2007 to 2008 to 2012-13 and audited balance sheet for the years ende d 31.3.2007, 31.3.2008, 31.3.2009, 31.3.2010, 31.3.2011, 31.3.2012 and 31.3.2013 with the statement of income and expenditure account etc. The defendant filed objection there to but after hearing both the sides, the lea rned trial court passed the order on 16.7.2015 allowing the application and ther eby directed the defendant to produce the documents fixing 14.9.2015 for the pur pose. This order passed by the learned trial court has been called in question i n the present revision petition. It is to be mentioned herein that the husband of the plaintiff in the present ca se instituted a similar money suit against the HUF to which the defendant of the present suit belongs and that Money Suit No. 92 of 2013 was similarly contested by the said Vinod Kumar Sharma. In that suit also, the husband of the present o pposite party had filed a similar application under Order XII Rule 8 of the CPC calling for identical documents and the learned trial court having allowed the s ame, the revision petition was preferred before this court and this court by ord er dated 27.5.2016 dismissed the revision petiton upholding the order. A copy of the order dated 27.5.2016 passed by this court has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the opposite party at the time of hearing. I have perused t he same. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that both the suits are id entical in nature and the parties are also practically similar. The nature of th e order passed by the learned trial court is identical. The learned trial court in his order dated 16.7.2015 has considered the sole objection raised by the def endant against application filed under Order XII Rule 8 of the CPC. It was the c ase of the defendant that the documents sought to be produced are neither necess ary nor relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the suit. As has been pointe d out above, plaintiff categorically stated in the body of the plaint that a sum of Rs.20,000,00/- was paid by her to the sole defendant by Cheque on the condit ion of refund along with interest @ 12% per annum and this fact of taking loan h as been disclosed by the defendant in his income tax papers. On this ground, the plaintiff wanted to call for the books of account and the income tax documents to show that the defendant had acknowledged the transaction. Upon such materials been placed, the learned trial court was of the view that th e documents sought to be produced are relevant and necessary and accordingly ord er has been passed on 16.7.2015 for production of the documents. I have perused

the order dated 16.7.2015 passed by the learned trial court in the present suit and also the previous orders passed by this court in identical CRP No. 4 of 2016 . Having gone through the documents, the averments made in the plaint and the impu gned order, this court is of the opinion that the documents sought to be produce d are relevant and necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute an d so the learned trial court has not committed any error, far less jurisdictiona l error, in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition , devoid of any merit stands rejected. Interi m order stands automatically vacated. No order as to cost. The copy of the order dated 27.5.2016 passed in CRP No. 4 of 2016 placed by the Mr. BK Chopra, learned counsel for the opposite party be placed on record.