Jain Exports vs Punjab & Sind Bank

Ranilt Singh, J

The application filed by the appellant seeking direction to the respondent bank to cause production of some documents has been declined by file Tribunal below. Aggrieved against this order, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

When this appeal came up for hearing on 7.2.2014, the counsel appearing for the appellants was required to specify the documents which would be needed from the respondent bank and the relevance thereof. Incidentally, the prayer of the appellants for production of documents was declined primarily on the ground that such a prayer cannot be allowed for being fishing and roving enquiry. The Tribunal below had also noticed that the party seeking production of any document has to specify the document and establish relevance thereof for actual disposal of the case. Similar was the situation in the appeal as nothing had been specified here in the appeal as well.

The appellants, accordingly, had moved an application giving out the documents and relevance thereof for deciding the controversy. Thereafter, notice in the appeal was issued and the case has been heard.

At the outset the counsel for the respondent bank has pointed out that during pendency of this appeal, the main O.A. in which the prayer for production of documents is made, has been decided by the Tribunal below. The O.A. has been allowed. This fact is not disputed by the counsel for the appellants. In light of this factual position, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants was asked to consider if he could maintain this appeal in view of the changed position that the main O.A. has been decided and there is no challenge made to the order passed in the O.A. till now. The learned counsel, however, would insist that he can maintain this appeal and the Tribunal below can always be asked to reconsider the order passed in the O.A. if it so felt by this Tribunal that the relevant material/document had been denied to the appellant. The counsel even would contend that the Tribunal below ought to have waited disposal of this appeal before deciding the O.A.

The counsel for the appellants has been heard at quite length. He has made an attempt to explain the issue involved in this case and how the documents which though have not been clearly listed or specified in the application would be relevant for deciding the case.

Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants, I am of the view that in order to succeed the appellants have now to challenge the order passed in the O.A. In the present appeal the order passed in O.A. is not under challenge. This Tribunal, thus would not be in any competent position to interfere with the final order passed in O.A. Proper course to adopt in this case of course is to raise a wholesome challenge to the order in O.A. including the grounds raised in this appeal that on the ground. The documents were wrongly declined by the Tribunal below. Even if some documents the production of which is being prayed for is considered relevant for deciding the controversy, no effective relief can be granted to the appellants unless challenge is made to the order passed in the O.A. which will stand. This aspect ought to have been appreciated by the learned senior counsel who apparently could not dispute this legal position in any effective manner.

I cannot subscribe to the submission made that the Tribunal below ought to have waited for decision in the present appeal before deciding the O.A. It may need a notice here that the prayer for stay of the proceedings in O.A. was made by the appellant but was declined by this Tribunal. The Tribunal below is fully justified in deciding the O.A.

The present appeal, in my view, cannot be properly prosecuted unless there is a challenge made to the orders passed in the O.A. Of course, all the grounds raised in the present appeal for production of documents or the affect of the denial thereof can easily be raised in the appeal if filed against the order passed in the O.A.

The present appeal is accordingly disposed of having been rendered infructuous with liberty to the appellant to raise all the pleas and points raised in the present appeal in the, appeal, if any, filed against the final order passed in the O.A.