PRACTICAL DIARY

SUBJECT: DRAFTING, PLEADINGS AND CONVEYANCING

SUBMITTED BY:
ADITI KABRA
LL.B. (HONS.)
SEMESTER- 3
SECTION – ‘A’
11111302112

SUBMITTED TO:
TRISHA JAIN

PRESTIGE INSTITUE OF MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OF LAW

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“I am incredibly grateful for the guidance and support I received throughout this project. I would
like to express my sincere appreciation to Ms TRISHA JAIN for her mentorship and insightful
supervision, which played an essential role in guiding me through the complexities of this work.
Her expertise and advice helped me tremendously in achieving my project goals.
I am also deeply thankful for the vast knowledge provided by various online sources and articles.
The information and perspectives I gained from these resources greatly enriched my understanding
and enabled me to explore my topic more comprehensively.
Lastly, I am appreciative of the encouragement and assistance I received from my college and
colleagues. Their feedback and support were invaluable in making this project possible.

Thank you all for contributing to the success of this endeavour.

Sincerely,
ADITI KABRA
(11111302112)
LLB HONS. Sem. 3rd

2
 LIST OF ABBREVEATION
SNO. ABBREVEATIONS FULL FORM

1. WS WRITTEN STATEMENT

2. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

3. MAD MADRAS

4. SC SUPREME COURT

5. ORS OTHERS

6. BOM BOMBAY

7. ANR ANOTHER

8. E ELECTRONIC

3
 LIST OF STATUES

1. THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

2. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

4
 LIST OF CASES

1. Bagyalakshmi Ammal and Ors v Srinivasa Reddiar

2. Central Bank of India v. Shivam Udyog
3. M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kanpur
4. Bharat Singh and anr. V Bhagirathi
5. Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya vs. The State of Bombay
6. Govind Narayan and Ors. Vs. Nagendra Nagda and Ors.
7. Samir Sen v Rita Ghosh
8. Gobinda Mohun v. Magneram Bangur & Co
9. Rapaport v. Kalbanji

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
SNO. CHAPTERS PAGE NO.:
1 INTRODUCTION 7
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODCTION
2 LEGAL PROVISION 8
 DISCOVERY
 OBJECT
 EXPLANATION
 INTERROGATORIES

3 LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS 11
4 PROCEDURE 13
 PRODUCTION
 ORDER OF INSPECTION

6
  NON COMPLIANCE
5 PURPOSE,SCOPE AND 16
CHALLENGES
6 CONCLUSION 18
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY 19

CHAPTER- I
INTRODUCTION
ABSTRACT:
Discovery and inspection of documents form an integral part of modern litigation, facilitating
transparency, accuracy, and equity in legal proceedings. This research paper explores the
significance of document discovery and inspection in enhancing transparency in litigation,
examining legal frameworks, ethical concerns, and procedural challenges associated with it.
Through an analysis of current practices, recent judicial trends, and the scope of transparency, this
paper aims to illuminate how discovery can be a vehicle for both transparency and fairness in the
judicial process.

INTRODUCTION:
To understand the concept of discovery and inspection of documents, let us take an example
wherein X (plaintiff) files a civil suit against Y (defendant). The case involves important
documents. Some of the documents are possessed by X and others by Y. Later, after the filing of a

7
complaint and written statement (WS) by X and Y respectively, X wishes to access some documents
that are possessed by Y. Here, A has an option to view such documents by way of filing an
application before the Hon'ble court seeking discovery of documents that are in possession of Y.
The reasons for filing such an application are required to be mentioned by X which either can be for
smoother functioning of the case or for the better understanding of the case or that the discovery of
documents is important for the issues to be framed appropriately so that he can destroy the case of
his adversary at the hearing.
The word 'document' in very simple terms means a piece of written matter either in printed or
electronic form that gives some kind of information or acts as a piece of evidence. A document can
also be used for official records. In a civil suit, documents have a major role to play. The parties to a
civil suit, i.e., the plaintiff and defendant during the proceedings desire to be aware of all the
material facts and documents the other party may possess. Thus, the process by which either
plaintiff or defendant can know about the material facts of each other, or documents possessed by
the other parties or power relevant to the issue in the suit, is called discovery and inspection of
documents. Therefore, it becomes imperative to understand the concept of discovery and inspection
of documents.

CHAPTER- II

LEGAL PROVISION

“Power to order discovery and the like. - Section 30,1“Subject to such conditions and limitations
as may be prescribed,, the Court may, at any time, either of its own motion or on the application of
any party, - (a) make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to the
delivery and answering of the interrogatories, the admission of documents, facts, and the discovery,
inspection, production, impounding and return of documents or other material objects producible as
evidence;
(b) issue summonses to persons whose attendance is required either to give evidence or to produce
documents or such other objects as aforesaid; (c) order any fact to be proved by affidavit.”“

“When can one file for application for the discovery of documents?
In a civil suit, the application for discovery of documents must be filed after the plaint and written
statement has been presented before the court. This application can be made by either of the parties
that is the plaintiff or defendant in case they feel that the nature of their opponent’s case has not
1
The Code of Civil Procedure,1908

8
been sufficiently disclosed in the pleadings. It must be also noted that the Court must be satisfied
with the application that such discovery is necessary. The scope of application is limited to an
extent. And in case the purpose of this application is misused, it would give rise to unscrupulous
litigation that might defeat the ends of justice.”

Discovery of documents:

“Order XI Rule 12-142 , provides that for discovery of documents, whereby any party to the suit can
apply for discovery of documents. In purely procedural terms, the principal object of discovery is to
identify the documents, from pleadings or statements made before the court, which are in the hands
of the opposite party which may support the case of the applicant.

Order XI Rule 12 of the Code empowers the party to make an application for discovery of
documents to the court seeking those documents that are in possession or power of the other party.
This application may be filed without filing any affidavit. If it appears to the court that such
discovery is not required or not important at that stage of the suit, then the court either rejects the
application or adjourns it. The court has a discretionary power to deal with such application in the
sense that it might pass an order that will allow the party's access to certain documents only.”

Object:

“The main objective of discovery of document is to understand the nature of the case of opposite
party. Similarly, the party which is on the other end of providing documents through interrogatories
is also able to support their own case, to make own case stronger by making the other party do
admissions.”

Explanation- “When Plaintiff or Defendant appears before the Court, or either of the parties
believes that the nature of the opposite parties case is not disclosed so in such cases either of the
party is entitled to know the material fact of the opposite party. Basically, here the party can apply
for an order compelling other party to submit the list of relevant documents which are either in his
possession or power and also can have permission to inspect and take copies of necessary
documents from the Court. But, it must be noted that the party does not have right to know the
evidence of the opposite party. Also, the party is entitled to know about all the documents that the
opposite party is relying upon in the case. The main purpose of discovery is to make the parties
aware of the case that means there shall not be any ambiguity between parties while the trial is
going on. Both the parties shall be clear about the plaint made and issues thereby. Discovery of
documents by one party in a suit from another is not a right under law but a crucial procedural step
available to the parties in dispute – one that can potentially determine its fate. This procedure is
available to the parties as an enabler when the party, is, otherwise, unable to show the truth of a fact
in controversy since the required information / document is in the power or possession of the other.
This law of discovery (and inspection too) enables the parties in dispute to seek production of
documents from the other party to bring before the court such material that relate to the matter in
controversy so that the matter can be properly considered and adjudicated. One may even consider
this important aspect of procedural law as an opportunity for a party to sustain its own case or, for
that matter, reveal the baselessness of the adversary's case. On the most part, this procedure, if
efficaciously used, also yields expeditious disposal of the matter, by enabling an admission and
avoiding the need for long-drawn evidence. Since this procedure is not a right under law, on an
application of a party for discovery, it is for the court to determine whether the documents sought
are necessary to throw light on the matter before it. On determining so, the court may require the
2
The Code of Civil Procedure,1908

9
other party to disclose such documents not in possession of the applicant. On the court so directing
or in response to the application itself, the party against whom discovery of documents is sought,
may by way of an affidavit, produce the documents sought or object to its production stating
grounds as the circumstances require. That being said, an inherent evil in this procedure (one that
can be attributed primarily to the instinctive need to further one's own case) is termed, in legal
parlance, as fishing and roving expeditions. This is when a party through broad discovery requests
or random questions, attempts to elicit information from another party in the hope that something
relevant might be found. Such an attempt exceeds the scope of discovery allowed by procedural
laws. It has also been, held by Indian courts that a party cannot be compelled to produce documents
(or to give inspection of documents) for enabling the applicant to understand the genuineness of
purport of the documents relied upon by the defendants3“

Two important elements that must be discussed:-

(i) Facta Probanda- All such facts that constitute the case of a party. Basically, all such
facts that are the base of a case.
(ii) Facta Probantia- Facts by which evidence are proved.

Interrogatories:

“Interrogatories is covered Section 30 and Order XI Rule 1 to 11, 21 and 22 of the code4. The
interrogatories, when with the leave of the Court parties administer a set of questions on the other
party then it is called 'Interrogatories'. Interrogatories shall be confined to the facts, it shall not be
conclusions of law, construction of words or documents, or inference from facts. Under the CPC, it
is termed as the 'right to obtain information' by the parties. The party to whom the set of questions
were administered shall give reply to another party in writing and under oath. 'Discovery of
interrogatories' means when the party, while giving answers to the interrogatories, discloses the
nature of the case, with affidavit. As provided under the code, any party in a suit may file an
application to seek an order from the court, asking interrogatories to be served on the other party. So
after filling the plaint, when the written statement is filled by the defendant and when the court
sends summons to parties for the first hearing, if any party feels that there is a gap in the facts, then
they can fill an application under this section and ask order from the court.”

“Who can administer interrogatories?

Either the opposite party may apply for an order for granting leave to the party to deliver
interrogatories to another party/ies in the suit. Meaning, the plaintiff can apply for an order of the
court to administer his interrogatories to the defendant. The defendant can do the same thing.
Sometimes the plaintiff/ defendant may administer the interrogatories to the co-plaintiff/ co-
defendant.”

“Against whom interrogatories may be allowed?

As per Rule 5 of Order XI, any party to a suit which can be a:-

(i) Corporation; or

3
Bagyalakshmi Ammal and Ors v Srinivasa Reddiar (AIR 1960 Mad 510)
4
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

10
(ii) Body of persons; which may be incorporated or not incorporated; empowered by the law to
sue or to be sued; on its own name or giving any other person responsibility to sue or any
officer, against whom interrogatories can be filed.”

“If a body corporate is a party to the suit, then in interrogatories it shall be particularly mentioned to
which person or the officer the questions are to be presented.”

“Mode of interrogatories- Interrogatories are filed in the form prescribed under Appendix C Form
No. 2 of CPC, with such variations as are necessary. Reply to interrogatories, the reply to the
interrogatories is made in affidavit in the form prescribed under Appendix C Form No. 3 of CPC,
with such variations as are necessary.”

“Objection to interrogatories

Objection may be made by the parties on any of the following grounds:-

1. Questions are scandalous;

2. Questions are irrelevant;

3. Questions are not exhibited bona fide;

4. Matters which are inquired into are not sufficiently material at this stage;

5. On the ground of privilege; or

6. Any other ground.”

CHAPTER- III
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

“In Central Bank of India v. Shivam Udyog 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a suit pertaining
to the enforcement of security by the bank. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction on the basis
that it was a fictitious mortgage. Later, the defendant made an application under Order XI Rule 12
thereby seeking access to the departmental proceedings pending against the bank employees.
However, this application was rejected by the Court. The court in this case also viewed that
discovery of a document is important for the party making such application irrespective of whether
the document might be inadmissible as evidence in court or not. The discovery of documents can
assist the party to advance his case or damage the opposite party's case. If it appears to the court that
the documents are unrelated or immaterial to the question in controversy or the prayer is made to
delay the proceedings, then the application will be rejected.”

5
1995 AIR 711, 1995 SC (2) 74

11
“The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kanpur6 explained the meaning of the word
“document”. It was viewed that the definition of the document constitutes anything that is written or
printed ignoring the material on which it has been written or printed, is either inserted or imprinted.
Further, in this case, it was viewed that if any document throws light on the matter in controversy,
then the discovery of those documents would be considered relevant even if those documents are
inadmissible as evidence during the proceedings or inquiry. The order for discovery was issued by
the trial court, which had jurisdiction. Even if every material error of law-even an error of law
within the jurisdiction in the fundamental understanding of the term-is presumed to result in lack of
jurisdiction, we do not believe the order was vitiated by any error of law. Even in its broadest sense,
the denial of the application for time and, as a result, the dismissal of the petition for permission to
litigate in forma pauperis, can scarcely be described as a jurisdictional error, as previously
explained. We're likewise not convinced that the refusal to adjourn resulted in any breach of natural
justice, rendering the decree null and void. There is also no evidence that the Court acted
improperly or with serious irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in dismissing the motion for
time. Overall, this case law highlighted the need for a fair and just. Criminal justice system that
also safeguards the rights of both the accused and the victim of crime particularly in cases where
there is risk of bias against them. It emphasized the importance of the proper investigation, fair trial,
and upholding the presumptions of innocence to ensure that justice is served. It also based its
emphasis on the fact that the police needs to do conduct a thorough investigation and collect all
relevant evidence to ensure that the innocent are acquitted and the guilty ones are punished.”

“As per the case of Bharat Singh and anr. V Bhagirathi7, the Supreme Court held that admissions,
in themselves, are substantial pieces of evidence. However, according to section 17 and section 21
of the Indian Evidence Act, they are not even conclusive. But when the admission is established
beyond any doubt and proved in due course, then on the ground that the witness did not appear in
the box, his admission can be taken as admissible.”

“In Biswanath v Dwarka Prasad8 the Apex Court has observed that (1) Admissions are those
statements which are made by the maker against himself in a court of law unless otherwise proved
or explained. (2) The admissions are held to be proprio vigore-that is a phrase which shall take
effect by its own force.”

“In another case of Supreme Court, Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya vs. The State of Bombay it is stated
that even though admissions made are not communicated to the other person, then also that can be
used against him. For example: if the person has written in the accounts book regarding debt, then if
such evidence is available then that will be considered as an admission even though the debt was
not communicated to other people.”

“In the case of Govind Narayan and Ors. Vs. Nagendra Nagda and Ors. It was observed by the
Rajasthan High Court that interrogatories are very important and when should the party file the time
period. The court held as under:”

•” Reading section 30 with Order XI, Rule 1 of the Code, it is evident that the courts are vested with
a discretion to allow service on interrogatories at any stage of the suit. The court confers wide
discretion, at the same time the discretion shall be exercised judiciously.”

6
1972 AIR 2379
7
1966 AIR 405, 1966 SCR (1) 606
8
1974 AIR 117

12
• “The information being sought under interrogatories should be relevant to the subject matter of the
controversy. The court shall take this stage of the suit seriously. Meanwhile, it has to be known that
the prime goal behind this procedure is saving time and cost and making it enclose the issues or
limiting the disputes.”

“In a recent case of 2018, Samir Sen v Rita Ghosh, the petitioner filed an application under Order
XI after five months of the closure of the plaintiff's - respondent's evidence in the trial court.
Because of the delay, the lower court dismissed the application for which an appeal has been filed
by the aggrieved. The Jharkhand High Court rightly observed that as per the scheme laid down for
the trials in the Order XIII CPC, it requires parties to produce their original documents as per their
claim founded during the time of presentation of the plaint or filing of the written statement. And
because of this, the interrogatories are given under Order XI of the Code. And upheld that an
applicant failed to file the application in time and therefore the order of the trial court is not wrong
and the writ petition was dismissed.”

“In Gobinda Mohun v. Magneram Bangur & Co, it was held that, “Rule 12 of Order 11 is
considerably wider than Order 13, Rule 1 of the Code. The right to obtain discovery of an
adversary’s documents is a very wide one and is not limited merely to those documents which may
be held to be admissible in evidence when the suit is ultimately tried.” “It is true that in a suitable
case a defendant may object to the production of a document on the ground that it relates solely to
his title, but if on the other hand, that document may have some bearing in support of the plaintiff’s
title; such objection cannot be validly raised.” “ If an order for discovery is made under Rule 12 of
Order 11 all the documents relating to the case should be embodied in the affidavit of documents by
the person against whom the order for discovery is made. If however, the defendant considers that
he is entitled to protection in respect of the production of any particular documents which may be
entered in the affidavit under Order 11, Rule 13 of the Code, he will be at liberty to raise such
objection at the proper stage of the proceedings if and when he is ordered to produce such
documents under Order 11, Rule 14 or to give inspection of them under Order 11, Rule 18.”

CHAPTER- IV

A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT PROCEDURE

“Procedure of Discovery and Inspection of Documents:”

“Commencement of the Discovery Procedure- Generally, the discovery process begins with a
proper application made by one party to another seeking disclosure of specific documents relevant
to the case. Rule 12 requires that the party to whom discovery is being sought to file its application
before the court showing that the specific documents sought are relevant to the questions in
dispute.”

13
“Response to a Discovery Request- When a discovery request is made, the responding party should
either produce the requested documents or give some lawful reasons to refuse them. Reasons for
refusing such include relevance, privilege, and undue burden. In case the responding party denies
the production of the requested documents without adequate justification, the court may impose
sanctions or order disclosure.”

“Document Inspection- Once a document has been prepared for discovery, the opposing party is
allowed to inspect it. The procedure with respect to inspection has been prescribed in Rule 18 of
Order XI that allows parties to view and examine relevant documents before trial. In fact, inspection
ensures that all parties know the evidence in and out and, therefore, can prepare accordingly.”

“PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT:”

“Order XI, Rule 149, empowers the court to order the party against whom an application for
production of the document is made to produce such documents in his possession or power. After
such documents are produced before the court, then the court might look into them fairly and
properly. This application can be dealt with by the Court and an order to the same effect can be
passed at any time during the pendency of any suit. It is pertinent to note that Discovery of
Documents (Rule 12) is different from production of documents (Rule 14) in the manner than in the
former rule, the party to suit is required to make an application before the court whereas, in the
latter, the court itself (suo-moto) asks the other party to produce documents. No application of the
discovery of the document is required to be made by the party in the latter case. And, if the party to
whom the court on its own motion orders for production of documents, fails to produce them, then
in such case, the court makes an adverse presumption against such party for not producing the
documents.”

ORDER OF INSPECTION:

“Order XI Rule 18(1) of the Code empowers the court to make an order regarding inspection of
documents if such party shall fail or neglect to give notice of inspection within ten days or certain
conditions like producing at a place other than pleader's office is offered. Such an order may be
passed by the court only on an application of the party asking for inspection and/or copies.
However, there is an exception to this rule: such an order shall not be made if it appears to the court
that it is neither disposing of the case properly nor saving costs. The party applying for inspection
of documents under this Rule must now also list in an affidavit all the documents it needs to
inspect. In the same affidavit as where a party makes an application for inspection of a document,
that and those documents which it wishes to inspect will be designated by this party in its affidavit.
They will also state that such inspection is a possibility, and they will further give notice of which
specific documents belong to third persons or are in the control of someone else. While discovery
of documents is not a right, Order XI Rule 15 entitles parties in a suit to (at or before settlement of
issues) to give notice to the other party, to produce any document reference of which has been
made or on which reliance has been placed in its pleadings, documents, or affidavits. 10 Importantly,
9
The Code of Civil Procedure,1908

10
Rapaport v. Kalbanji, AIR 1923 Bom 73: (1922) 46 Bom 866

14
in respect of inspection of documents too, any party not complying with such notice is afterwards
not at liberty to put any such document in evidence without satisfying court as to why it was not
able to comply with such notice.11 The provisions regarding inspection of documents are divided in
two categories by virtue of Rule 15 to 19 of order XI. First one deal with documents referred to in
pleadings or affidavits of parties, and second one deals with other documents in possession or
power of the party but not referred to in the pleadings of the parties. A party is entitled for
inspection in regard to documents of first class only. Since privileged documents are protected from
production such as public records, confidential communications and documents having exclusive
evidence of parties’ title. Etc., therefore at the risk of repetition the court may inspect the
documents for the purpose of deciding the validity of the claim of privileges.”

Privileged documents are:

1. Public records;

2. Confidential communication;

3. Documents which have exclusive evidence of the parties' title.

“Such mentioned privileged documents are protected from the production. So to get benefit from
this privilege and to avoid the risk of repetition, the court can order the parties to produce the
document to the court. And the court can inspect such documents and ascertain the validity of the
claims which were made to make that set of documents underprivileged.”

“Premature discovery

As per Rule 20, a discovery is termed as premature discovery or inspection:”

“1) When the right to discovery is based on the determination of any issue or question in dispute;
or”

“2) For any reason, it is desirable that any issue or question in a suit should be determined before
deciding upon the right of discovery.”

NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER OF DISCOVERY:

“As per Rule 21, the order of the court is binding in nature, and the parties who do not comply shall
be liable to pay the penalty. Hereby, we can understand that the intent of the legislature to provide
such provision is:

1. To compel the parties to disclose all the material documents and facts on oath.

2. To restrict the parties from coming up with new documents which are actually in power or
possession of the party during the trial.”

“The main logic of this provision is to enable the court to distinguish between the differences of
deciding an issue in suit from deciding the suit itself. However, it needs to be kept in mind that this
provision will not work if the discovery in itself is necessary for solving the issue or question. Non-
compliance with an order under Order XI either for production for documents or inspection
11
Order XI, Rule 15

15
(especially when the party has been called upon to produce documents, they themselves rely upon
and have in their control), will likely lead the court to draw an unfavourable / detrimental
conclusion (termed as adverse inference in legal parlance) from the party's failure to produce such
evidence, especially when no reason is shown as to why the documents could not be produced. This
presumption in law finds its basis not only in the jurisprudence on this subject, but also in section
114 (g)12 , which prescribes that the court may presume” - “evidence which could be and is not
produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it.”

“A more stringent effect of non-compliance of orders for discovery or inspection is dismissal of

plaintiff's suit or striking out of the defendant's defence. However, courts apply extreme caution
while passing such an order (under Order XI Rule 21 of CPC), since such a consequences are
highly penal in nature and should in no way be imposed unless there is a clear failure to comply
with the obligations laid down in the Rule. The test here is whether the default was wilful. It is
only if the court is satisfied that the party was wilfully withholding information by refusing to
answer interrogatories or by withholding the documents that the party must face the consequences
of having his plaint dismissed due to his wilful default i.e. by suppression of information which he
was bound to give. Rules as to discovery: Any party can get an order from the court for the
discovery of the documents or for inspection of documents. It is the discretion of the court to pass
such an order. The court can use its power any time during the suit, either suo moto or by the
application of the party. The court shall not pass an order for the discovery, inspection or
production until the written statement has been filed by the defendant. No such order shall be
passed if the application is made by the defendant until he has not filed a written statement.
Discovery of the document shall not be made if the court is not of the opinion that this order will
lead to fair disposal of the suit or useful for saving cost. A party to whom an order of discovery of
documents has been passed, as a general rule, shall produce all the documents which are under his
possession related to the suit. If the parties are taking any legal protection under the privileges
provided under the code, then the court shall verify such documents and give the protection. Failure
to comply or default from the side of the parties to the order for discovery, production or
inspection, can lead to adverse inference on the party.”

CHAPTER-V

PURPOSE, SCOPE AND CHALLENGES

“Purpose and Importance of Document Discovery and Inspection

Discovery and inspection of documents have a myriad of very important purposes in the civil
litigation process:”

“Clarity and Neutrality- With discovery, both parties get to be briefed on all documents and relevant
evidence. Therefore, it promotes openness in the judicial process. In this way, by making it
impossible for one party to hide information which could affect the case's outcome, discovery points
to the tendency of fairer and balanced litigation.”

“Promoting Quality Case Preparation- Discovery helps the parties determine the strength and
weakness of their respective cases. Discovery further enables parties to be better prepared at trial
because they will have all or most of the evidence. This lessens the chance of surprises that might
work one's way in or out of court.”

12
Indian Evidence Act, 1872

16
“Discovery further aids parties in disposing of particularly contentious factual issues, fashioning or
narrowing legal arguments, and identifying disputed issues that need resolution”.

“Early information exchange would help to facilitate the litigation process by allowing discovery. A
realistic understanding of the merits and demerits of each case would prompt parties to settle down
more easily. This would thereby bring relief to the courts and accelerate further the pace at which
justice could be administered.”

“Reducing Chances of Perjury and Fabrication- The parties are made to provide all relevant
documents so that the possibility of fabricating false evidence or presenting false facts is reduced to
an extent. Discovery acts as a check against dishonesty, because litigants are made to give truth and
full information to support the allegations made.”

SCOPE OF DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS:

“The scope of this section is basically determined by the extent of discovery which can be made by
the party with the intervention of the court. The information which is obtained during the discovery
is not needed to be admissible in court. As per the requirement, parties can obtain an order from the
court for the discovery of required facts/ documents from the opposite party to understand the
purpose of the case. Thereby, the scope or extensibility of applying this section depends upon the
nature of the case and material which is asked by the other party. So it is the discretion of the court
to decide whether the application is covered as per the scope provided to the section under the code
or not. This is not against any kind of natural justice, in fact it plays as an important part of fair trial.
The importance of such provision is that if the defendant denies complying with the provision it will
be deemed that the defense from the defendant's side will be struck off and that will restore the
position of the defendant to where he had been as if he has not defended. In the case, if the plaintiff
does not comply to the provisions then it will lead to an adverse effect that means the plaintiff will
disentitle to file a case as a fresh suit on the same cause of action and res judicata will be applicable.
Therefore, non-compliance will impact the case adversely.”

Relevance and Materiality

“A document is discoverable if it is relevant to one's claims or defense. Judges broadly construe

“relevant” to the discovery process as a way not to miss even potentially important evidence. When
discovery is otherwise generously available under the rules, these two requirements, relevance and
materiality, frequently become the test for inspection demands that are submitted for documents
both to receive supportive information and potentially damaging.”

“Privileged and Protected Documents

Transparency in discovery is tempered by the doctrine of privilege. Disclosures of attorney-client

communications and certain work products are exempted from disclosure. Courts weigh openness
against privacy rights and legal protections with an appreciation that sometimes information may be
critical to a fair legal defense.”

“Scope and Limits of Inspection

Judicial standards will dictate how much to be allowed in document inspection. Since openness will
always be top, courts may avoid inspection where it may infringe on privacy, national security, or

17
even trade secrets. In-camera review or protective orders may be tolerated in respect of the
principles of fairness in litigation.”

“How is Discovery of Documents part of fair trial?

The answer to this is, we can see that both the parties are on equal footings that is, for example, is
Mr A has some documents and similarly some documents are with other party suppose Mr B, and
so if those documents which are in possession of Mr B comes to the record, Mr A can effectively
put up his case in front of the Court. With this, we can say that both parties will stand on equal
footing. Therefore, this discovery of document becomes important aspect of a fair trial.”

“Challenges in the Discovery and Inspection Process:

Overuse and Abuse of Discovery- The discovery process, as valuable as it is, tends to become a tool
for the parties in search of a legitimate excuse to delay the proceedings or even to
overwhelm their opponent with too many document requests. This has come to be known as
“abuses of discovery,” where the burden placed on an opposing party can become enormous in
terms of cost and delay and detracts from the efficiency of litigation.

Evolving Nature of E-Discovery- As electronic data is now the norm, the scope of discovery has
been expanded to include online communications such as emails, text messages, and social media
posts. E-discovery also presents unique challenges such as data privacy, retrieval, and preservation
issues. The courts have responded by providing guidelines on the management of electronic
evidence, yet the challenges posed by the sheer volume and complexity of digital information are
only growing.

Balancing Transparency and Privacy- There are situations in which the duty to produce relevant
documents conflicts with privacy concerns.”

CHAPTER- V

CONCLUSION

“Discovery and inspection of documents is not a compulsive process in a suit, but the disclosure
procedure under discovery and inspection helps for the fair and expeditious determination of
disputes. Many suits instituted before courts are compromised solely because parties fail to make
proper use of this procedure.”

“It is in these critical regards that discovery and inspection are important, for they offer the parties
an opportunity to examine the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases and to request
disclosure of information pertinent to the suit which is within the control of the other party and
would be essential for a proper and just determination of the disputes. The more mundane
application for seeking discovery/inspection of documents may bring before the parties and
ultimately the court a much more complete body of relevant material to be found as the basis of the

18
 resolution of the dispute. It can further assist the court to frame the issues and lead the parties to
understand the scope of inquiry going into the evidence stage. This discovery and inspection of
documents even before the stage of evidence, serves to ensure conducting a fair, just, and equal
trial.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books iand iCommentaries:

 Mulla, iD. iF. iThe iCode iof iCivil iProcedure, i21st iEdition, iLexisNexis, i2019.
 Reddy, iS. iK. iThe iCivil iProcedure iCode, i10th iEdition, iEastern iBook iCompany, i2015.
 Sarkar, iS. iC. iSarkar’s iLaw iof iCivil iProcedure, i13th iEdition, iLexisNexis, i2020.
 Chaturvedi, iK. iK. iCivil iProcedure iCode i(CPC) iwith iCommentary, i12th iEdition, iUniversal
iLaw iPublishing, i2022.

Reports iand iPublications:

 Law iCommission iof iIndia, i117th iReport ion iThe iCode iof iCivil iProcedure i(Amendment),
i1986.

19
 Ministry iof iLaw iand iJustice, iCommercial iCourts i(Amendment) iAct, i2018 i– iLegislative
iAnalysis, iGovernment iof iIndia, i2018.
“Judicial iReforms iand ithe iCommercial iCourts iAct: iA iReview”, iNational iJudicial
iAcademy, i2021

Online iSources:
 India iCode i(Online): iThe iCivil iProcedure iCode, i1908, iMinistry iof iLaw iand iJustice,
iGovernment iof iIndia.
 India iKanoon: iOnline icase ilaw idatabase ifor iIndian ilegal ijudgments.
 SCC iOnline: iLegal idatabase ifor icase ilaw iand ijudgments ifrom iSupreme iCourt iand iHigh
iCourts.
 Indian Law Journal.com
 Mondaq
 www.youtube.com/law_wallah

20
21
22