TMI Blog1967 (11) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Kailasam J. in T.C.M.P. No. 39 of 1965 in T.C. No. 218 of 1959. We are of the view that the matter, essentially, lies within a restricted compass. We have had extensive arguments presented before us, both by learned counsel for the appellant-firm and learned counsel for Sri A. C. K. Krishnaswami (respondent), but there are several very good reasons why we need not cover the entire area of these submissions. Actually, the relief now asked for is restricted in scope, and depends on the application of a certain limited principle of the procedural law. Again, in view of the other proceedings that are pending now in this court between the same parties, and which are sub judice, and further, in view of the admittedly most acrimonious and embitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a considerable time. Sri Ismail argues that the appellant-firm cannot be possibly bound by any observations of the Division Bench in that judgment, with regard to the proprietary interest in the lease. Since the appellant-firm is not a party, and cannot be bound by the judgment or by any part of it, on any principle of res judicata, or an analogous concept, the request of the firm to inspect the documents is not bona fide. Counsel also points out that the nature of those proceedings is unique, there is authority for the view that such proceedings are not in appellate jurisdiction, but are really comprised in a special advisory jurisdiction of this court. Rule 65 of the Appellate Side Rules (old), which has been relied on by Sri Vasantha P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as " civil suits ". The learned judge (Kailasam J.) permitted the appellant firm to have a scrutiny of the judgment in the tax case, but declined the request for inspection of the documents filed in the case, or for grant of application for copies of such documents which are claimed to be relevant and essential for defences in other pending proceedings. We shall very briefly state our reasons why, in our view, the interests of justice do require the grant of the request of the petitioner-firm, at least to the extent of inspection of the documents in the tax case, and the margin notes thereon with regard to identification of those doument. But, in our view, with regard to grant of copies of such documents, which are themselves copies, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irm from establishing its rights with regard to the lease. But the fact remains that those observations were relied on, in one affidavit in the protracted litigation between these parties, and we are unable to dismiss the possibility that, under section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, the concerned party may seek to rely on those very observations as relevant, and as having some probative value. We do not propose to discuss here the case law under section 13, but we are satisfied that the petitioner-firm has a conceivable interest in repelling the effect of the remarks of the Division Bench. That appeal necessarily implies, quite apart from any review or appeal in the tax reference itself, which the petitioner-firm may or may not seek to fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve perused the records in the tax case for ourselves and we find that they consist of two parts, one part relates to the printed record, which are orders and annexures ; the other part comprises typed papers, which were supplied to this court by the concerned party and are equally part of the record of this court. We find it difficult to conceive why a party who has shown a probability of his interest being affected, should be prevented from looking into the records of this court which are in the custody of this court, when he desires to know those particulars for his defence in pending proceedings. We may add that the learned judge (Kailasam J.) has referred to a privilege which might be claimed by the income-tax authority but that is now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner-firm is or is not entitled to have the documents sent for. We are advisedly making no comment, one way or the other, about the merits of any such possible grounds. But, in our view, where the entire purpose of the petitioner-firm is to ascertain the particulars of these documents, in order to pursue its further relief, or to more effectively conduct its defences in pending proceedings, the fact that certain of those documents have been referred to in the schedule of discovery of documents on the Original Side, is no bar or factor of inhibition preventing the inspection. Accordingly, we allow the appeal to this limited extent, viz., that the petitioner-firm will now be permitted to inspect the two sets of documents forming part o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
