Drastic procedural sanctions for non-production of documents require wilful and contumacious default, not mere dispute over disclosure.

An application seeking penal consequences under Order XI, Rule 21 CPC was held not maintainable where the earlier directions were treated as directions for discovery and production under Order XI, Rule 14 CPC. The Court reiterated that striking out a defence or dismissal of a suit is a drastic sanction available only on proof of wilful, deliberate, obstinate, or contumacious withholding of documents or information. On the material before it, there was no basis to infer that the bank possessed and was suppressing documents, and the adequacy of its response or any adverse inference had to be considered in the substantive proceedings rather than in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

---

---

Issues: Whether a penal order under Order XI, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be invoked for alleged non-compliance with directions made for discovery and production of documents, and whether the facts justified striking out the defence or dismissal of the claim.

Analysis: The directions earlier issued were treated as directions under Order XI, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Court accepted that an application under Order XI, Rule 21 was not maintainable on that basis. The Court further held that the drastic consequence of dismissal of a suit or striking out of the defence can follow only where there is wilful, deliberate, obstinate, or contumacious withholding of information or documents. On the material before it, there was nothing to show that the respondent bank possessed documents and was suppressing them. The adequacy of the bank's response and the question whether any adverse inference should be drawn were matters for determination in the substantive proceedings and not for premature adjudication in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The request for the penal procedural relief was not warranted, and the challenge to the orders of the DRT and DRAT failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected, leaving the interim procedural orders undisturbed and the underlying recovery proceedings to continue on their merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A drastic procedural sanction such as striking out a defence can be ordered only on proof of wilful and contumacious non-compliance, and not merely because documents are not produced or their existence is disputed.

---