https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272523 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. en-us Fri, 05 Sep 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 May 2018 12:42:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272523 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 Sep 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272523