Order 11 Rule 14 CPC cannot replace notice to produce, inspection, certified copies, or adverse inference for non-production.

Order 11 Rule 14 CPC is a discretionary discovery provision and cannot be used as a substitute for notice to produce, inspection, certified copies, or the evidentiary consequences of non-production. Bank statements and related records, especially where obtainable through court records or from third parties/public authorities, should be sought through the proper procedural route rather than by a coercive order against the opposing party. Income tax returns are treated with similar procedural restraint: the party should first be called upon to produce them, and non-production may then support secondary evidence or an adverse inference. The commentary states that coercive production under Order 11 Rule 14 was therefore not the correct remedy for either category of documents.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be used to compel the opposing party to produce bank statements and other records during trial when the proper course was to seek discovery, notice to produce, inspection, or certified copies. (ii) Whether the opposing party could be compelled under the same provision to produce income tax returns, or whether the proper remedy was notice to produce with consequential secondary evidence or adverse inference on non-production.

Issue (i): Whether an application under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be used to compel the opposing party to produce bank statements and other records during trial when the proper course was to seek discovery, notice to produce, inspection, or certified copies.

Analysis: The scheme of the procedural law distinguishes between discovery of documents, production for inspection, and production of documents at trial. Order 11 governs discovery and inspection, while the Evidence Act provisions operate when documents are called for in the course of proof. Where documents are already in the custody of the Court in another proceeding, the proper course is to seek them through the court record rather than compel the adversary to produce them. Where documents are in the possession of a third person or public authority, the appropriate procedural route is notice, summons, certified copies, or an application to have the documents sent for, not a broad coercive order under Order 11, Rule 14.

Conclusion: The order compelling production of the bank statements and related records was not sustainable and was set aside, in favour of the first defendant.

Issue (ii): Whether the opposing party could be compelled under the same provision to produce income tax returns, or whether the proper remedy was notice to produce with consequential secondary evidence or adverse inference on non-production.

Analysis: Income tax returns are treated differently because of the confidentiality and statutory framework governing their production. The Court held that the proper procedure is to call upon the party to produce the returns, and if they are not produced, to rely on secondary evidence where available or seek an adverse inference from the non-production. The controversy was not one of discovery intended to shorten litigation but one arising in the course of trial, so coercive production under Order 11, Rule 14 was not the correct remedy for such returns.

Conclusion: The refusal to direct production of the income tax returns was upheld, in favour of the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The revision filed by the first defendant succeeded, while the revision filed by the plaintiffs failed, leaving the parties to pursue the permissible procedural course for obtaining or proving the disputed documents.

Ratio Decidendi: Order 11, Rule 14 is a discretionary discovery provision and cannot be used as a substitute for notice to produce, inspection, certified copies, or the evidentiary consequences that follow non-production; the appropriate procedure depends on whether the document is sought for discovery or for use at trial.

---