MESSRS VULCAN COMPANY LIMITED vs THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND Other
The petitioner entered into a contract to supply air-conditioners, which were subsequently rejected by the Government, leading to a dispute referred to arbitration. During the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner sought to inspect a summoned departmental file to cross-examine a witness. The civil court and the High Court dismissed the request on the technical ground that no formal application was made under Order XI, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a party can be denied the inspection of a summoned file for cross-examination due to the absence of a separate formal application under procedural rules. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that procedural laws are meant to facilitate justice rather than act as a clog or technical hurdle. The Court set aside the lower orders, ruling that denying inspection on such hyper-technical grounds is impermissible, and directed the trial court to allow the petitioner to inspect the file for cross-examination.
- Whether a party can be denied the inspection of a summoned departmental file for the purpose of cross-examination solely for want of a separate formal application under Order XI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the Code of Civil Procedure intended to act as a clog on the proper dispensation of justice or as a facility for the smooth running of judicial proceedings?
- Section 30, Arbitration Act 1940
- Section 33, Arbitration Act 1940
- Order XI Rule 18, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioner had entered into a contract to supply 14 air-conditioners for installation in passenger buses. These are claimed to have been duly supplied to respondent No. 3.
These air-condi--tioners were rejected by the Government on an inspection made in the absence of any representative of the petitioner and the petitioner-Company was asked to refund the foreign exchange component of respondent No. 2. Since a dispute has arisen, the Government appointed respondent No. 4 as an Arbitrator who made an Award against the petitioner-Company beyond the statutory period of four months. The petitioner applied under section 33 read with section 30 of the Arbitration Act and, produced three witnesses before closing its evidence on 19-5- 1970.
2. Mr. Mansoor Ahmed, Arbitrator, was the only witness produced in rebuttal. The petitioner's counsel wanted to go through the departmental file of respondent No. 2 relating to the case and to cross-examine the witness by confronting him with it. He consequently made an application and the file was duly summoned. The hearing was adjourned on various occasions. Finally when the case came up for heating the learned counsel for the petitioner applied for permission to inspect the file of respondent No. 2. This was objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that no inspection of the file for fishing out evidence could be allowed. This objection of the respondents was upheld and the petitioner's request was turned down.
3. The petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 501/75 against the order of Mian Abdul Qayum, Civil Judge, Lahore, which was dismissed on 16-1-1976. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
4. By an order passed on 15-6-1980 this Court issued notice to the respondents who have appeared in response to it. This petition for special leave to appeal is converted into an appeal and is going to be disposed of as such.
5. The learned Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that the application which had been made for the summoning of the file was not under Order XI, rule 18, C. P. C. And, therefore, the petitioner could not claim to inspect the file for facilitating the questions m cross---examination.
The Code of Civil Procedure is not meant to be a clog in the way of proper dispensation of justice.
The procedures prescribed in ii are meant for the facility and smooth running of the wheels of justice to enable the Court to arrive at proper conclusions in accordance with the fact of the case and the law. It is not denied that the file had been summoned at the instance of the petitioner and that the cross-examination of respondent No. 4 was deferred with a view to permitting the counsel for the petitioner to have the file before him. As a matter of fact, the file was in possession of respondent No. 4 in Court even on that date and there was no law which stood in the way of the learned Civil Judge permitting the petitioner to inspect the file for the purpose of cross- examination. He, however, insisted that the file should be specifically summoned for this purpose through the official who normally has its custody. The petitioner complied with this hyper- technicality also. When the file was thus summoned and received in Court he was again denied the opportunity of going through it for the purpose of cross-examination. To say that there was no separate application made under Order XI, rule 18 of the C. P. C. And the petitioner was thus not entitled to commence his cross-examination on the inspection of the life is making a fetish out of a technicality and converting the Code of Civil Procedure from a statute meant for the facilitation and smooth running of the course of civil proceedings into a clog in the manger to clog the proper hearing and dispensation of justice in civil cases. It is not possible for us to approve of such a course of action. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Courts below. The case shall now go back to the learned Civil Judge who shall take up the thread from where he left it allowing the petitioner to inspect the file for the purpose of cross-examining the witness. This petition is accepted. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.