Inspection rights under civil procedure are limited to pleaded documents, and a pleader without vakalatnama cannot inspect as of right.

Inspection under Order XI is confined to documents referred to in the pleadings or affidavit, and not to documents merely filed as evidence under Order VII, Rule 14(2), unless the court otherwise directs. Refusal of inspection did not automatically justify dismissal of the suit under Order XI, Rule 21, because that sanction is discretionary and applies only in clear cases of deliberate or contumacious non-compliance. The text also states that an advocate who had not filed a vakalatnama could not claim an independent right to inspect documents merely because he was instructed by another pleader; inspection was treated as an act in the cause, not as pleading alone. The refusal of inspection was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a party had an enforceable right to inspect documents merely filed in a list under Order VII, Rule 14(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether refusal of such inspection justified dismissal of the suit under Order XI, Rule 21; (ii) Whether an advocate who had not filed a vakalatnama, but was instructed by another pleader who had filed one, was entitled to inspect the documents.

Issue (i): Whether a party had an enforceable right to inspect documents merely filed in a list under Order VII, Rule 14(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether refusal of such inspection justified dismissal of the suit under Order XI, Rule 21.

Analysis: The right of inspection under Section 30 and Order XI, Rule 15 was held to extend only to documents referred to in the pleadings or affidavit, namely documents made part of the case in the plaint or written statement, and not to documents merely produced as evidence under Order VII, Rule 14(2). Even assuming the documents were within Order XI, Rule 15, dismissal under Order XI, Rule 21 was not automatic. The rule vested discretion in the court, and the penalty was to be imposed only in clear cases of deliberate or contumacious non-compliance. On the facts, the appellant had taken no timely steps and had sought inspection only after several peremptory dates had passed.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant the prayer for dismissal of the suit was justified, and the appellant was not entitled to the relief sought.

Issue (ii): Whether an advocate who had not filed a vakalatnama, but was instructed by another pleader who had filed one, was entitled to inspect the documents.

Analysis: The Code and the Civil Rules and Orders drew a distinction between appearing, acting, and pleading. A pleader could act only upon a filed vakalatnama, while the proviso to Order III, Rule 4(5) permitted instruction by another pleader only for pleading. Inspection of documents was treated as an act in the cause and not as a mere act of pleading. A pleader who had neither filed nor accepted a vakalatnama could not claim an independent right to inspect documents on the basis of instructions alone.

Conclusion: The advocate had no right to inspect the documents, and the refusal of inspection was lawful.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both grounds, and the order refusing relief was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Inspection under Order XI is confined to documents referred to in pleadings or affidavit unless the court, in its discretion, orders otherwise, and a practitioner who has not filed a vakalatnama cannot claim inspection as an act in the cause merely because he is instructed by another pleader.

---