' MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.--- The plaintiff has filed this application (C.M.A. No,11083 of 2011) under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan read with sections 3 and 5 of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 and section 151, C.P.C. The grievance of the plaintiff is that vide orders dated 21-4- 2011 and 19-8-2011 directions were issued to the defendants to produce some documents, but they have failed to produce the same before the Commissioner while recording evidence.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration, injunction, recovery of damages/compensation with profits and costs in which not only she has challenged her termination of service w,e,f, 30-6-2007, but she has further prayed that the defendant be directed to allow her to continue her service and pay all salaries/ fringe-benefits. Besides above, she has also claimed damages.
3. Fifteen issues were settled by the learned Single Judge of this court on 8-11-2010 and Commissioner was appointed for recording evidence. On 7-12-2010 plaintiff moved an application under Order XI, Rule 14 read with section 151, C.P.C. For seeking direction against the defendants to produce some documents. The details of documents are mentioned in C.M.A. No,12500 of 2010. On behalf of defendants counter-affidavit was filed and defence was taken that the documents sought to be produced have no relevancy with the facts and circumstances of the case. The application was heard by learned Single Judge on 21-4-2011 and the application was allowed with the directions to the defendants to produce all documents, except the agreement. The details of the agreement are provided in paragraph No,1 of the application. In paragraph No,2 the termination letter of five Muslim teachers are mentioned with their names, while in paragraph No,3 the plaintiff sought the direction to disclose the date of birth and period of service of non-Muslim teachers/employees of defendant No,1 and their names are listed at Sr.Nos.1 to 15. In the same application appointment letters and termination letter if any of aforesaid 15 persons were also called, upon to be produced.
4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that despite clear directions, the defendants are wilfully disobeying and flouting the orders of this court and they have failed to produce the documents, hence this application has been filed, so that the alleged contemnors may be dealt with in accordance with law. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon PLD 2012 SC 466 (Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani, Prime Minister of Pakistan v. Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan and another) and referred to paragraph No,8 available at page 477 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to its own judgment reported in PLD 2011 Sc 680 (Justice Hasnat Ahmed Khan v. Federation of Pakistan) observed that under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 a person can be proceeded against for contempt of court if he disobeys or even disregards any order of a court, which he is legally bound to obey.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the alleged contemnors argued that non-production of documents despite order of this court cannot be the subject-matter of contempt of court proceedings and at the best against the non-production of documents only an adverse inference can be drawn, therefore, he argued that no contempt of court proceedings can be set into motion against the alleged contemnors. In support of his arguments he relied upon AIR 1989 Madras 314 (Chinnappan v. Ramachandran) in which Order XI, rule 14, C.P.C. Was discussed and the learned Judge of the view that failure to produce documents directed to be produced by an order of court passed under Order XI, rule 14, C.P.C. Does not enable the court to exercise its power under Order XI, rule 21, C.P.C. In the same sequence he relied upon 1993 M LD 425 (Sultana Qamar v. Mst. Rasulan), in which the learned Judge of Lahore High Court discussed the same. In this case also an order was passed by the court with the directions to produce certain documents, but the plaintiff failed to comply with the direction of the court. The defendants moved an application under Order XI, rule 21, C.P.C. And the court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for non-production of documents. The court of the view that Order XI, rule 21, C.P.C. Was not applicable and the suit was wrongly dismissed.
6. The record of the case reflects that the issues were framed by the court on 8-11-2010 and the Commissioner was appointed for recording evidence. The plaintiff moved an application under Order XI, rule 14, C.P.C., which was disposed of vide order dated 21-4-2011. The defendants in the counter-affidavit only took the plea that the documents have no relevancy to the facts and circumstances of the case and it consists of personal information relating to the persons not party to the proceedings. It was further stated that none of the documents are necessary for just and proper decision of the suit and the application was filed by the plaintiff to harass and intimidate the defendants and misuse the record. Learned Single Judge allowed this application and directions were issued to produce the documents, but the defendants have failed to produce the same. Even during course of arguments learned counsel for the defendants did not argue or pointed out that this order was ever challenged in appeal, if the defendants were aggrieved by this order. Since no appeal was filed, the order attained finality. On 19-8-2011 Commissioner's report was fixed for orders, on which date, the learned Judge of this court extended six months' time for commission and the defendants were again directed to produce documents during the cross- examination of defence witness so that defendant's witness may be cross-examined on the same.
Since both the orders were not complied with, the plaintiff has filed the present application.
7. On 21-12-2011 notice was issued to the alleged contemnors, who have filed their counter-affidavit.
I have gone through their counter-affidavit in which again it was stated that the application was not maintainable and in the event of production of the required documents, it will entail multiplicity of litigation. It was further stated that documents required to be produced have no relevancy to the facts and circumstances of the case of the plaintiff and the consequences of its non-production provided under the law by which only adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants due to non-production.
8. So far as the consequences provided under Order XI, rule 21, C.P.C. Are concerned, it has nothing to do with the production of the documents but it relates to non-compliance of an order of discovery. The provision is clear that where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if the plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution and if defendant, to have his defence,, if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the court for an order to that effect, and order may be made accordingly. Since in both the orders the learned Single Judge of this court only directed the defendants to produce certain documents under Order XI, rule 14, C.P.C., therefore, Order XI, rule 21 does not apply in this case and the defence of the defendants cannot be struck out and they cannot be placed in position as if they had not defended. The order passed under Order XI, rule 14, C.P.C. Has nothing to do with or cannot be equated with an order to answer interrogatories, discovery or inspection of documents. In the judgments reported in AIR 1989 Madras 314, AIR 1957 Rajasthan 367 and 1993 M LD 425, precisely, the same point was discussed and the Courts distinguished, differentiated and reconciled the Order XI, rule 14, C.P.C. And Order XIV, rule 21, C.P.C.
And held that in case of min-production, the defence cannot be struck off or the suit cannot be dismissed. The court can only dismiss the suit of plaintiff or strike off the defence of the defendants under Order XI, rule 21, C.P.C. On three grounds, firstly on refusal of answer interrogatories under Order XI, rule 11, C.P.C., secondly, on refusal to make discovery of documents under Order XI, rule 12, C.P.C. And thirdly, on refusal to permit inspection of documents under Order XI, rule 18, C.P.C.
9. In the counter-affidavit. Filed in response to the application under Order XI, rule 14, C.P.C., it was nowhere stated that the documents required to be produced were not in the custody of defendants and the only plea, which was taken is that the documents have no relevancy and it will entail multiplicity of proceedings and some documents are relating to information of persons not party to the suit. While allowing the said application, the learned Judge of this court has already held that the documents appear to have relevancy to the points in question, on which the issues are already framed by this court, therefore, according to learned Single Judge, there appears no cogent reason to reject the prayer of the plaintiff specially when no prejudice would be caused to the defendants on production of the documents in question. If the defendants were feeling aggrieved by this order they could have challenged the same in the appeal, but no attempt appears to have been made to challenge the same and this order was further merged in the order dated 19-8-2011. The defendants were directed to produce document during cross-examination of DW-1, so that defendant's witnesses may be cross-examined on the same. The consequences of non-production of the documents under Order XI, rule 14, C.P.C. Are not provided in the C.P.C. And the argument of the learned counsel that in case of non-production of documents, only an adverse inference can be drawn is misconceived. Once order is passed it should be implemented unless it is set aside, reviewed or recalled. The court passes orders for its implementation and execution and not for merely drawing an adverse inference in case of its non-compliance. This rule empowers the court to order production of document as distinct from discovery.
10. The consequences provided under Order XI, Rule 21, C.P.C. Have altogether different premise, which are not applicable as the consequence of non-production of documents under Order XI, rule 14, C.P.C. No reasonable ground was raised either at the time of defending this application or even in the counter-affidavit filed by the alleged contemnors. In my view the court's orders should have been obeyed and much sanctity should have given otherwise, administration of justice would not be possible and orders passed by this court under Order XI, rule 14, C.P.C. Will become redundant and meaningless. In the counter-affidavit the contemnors also stated that if this court is of the view that non-production of the documents is amount to contempt of court and the defendants must produce the same, the alleged contemnors are ready to produce the same and tendered unconditional apology.
11. It is not merely a case of non-production of documents, which amounts to contempt of court, but it is the order of this court, which has not been complied with. No specific or exact consequence is provided for non-production of documents in C.P.C. And it is a misconceived argument that non- production will only lead an adverse inference. Despite two orders passed by this court on 21-4-2011 and 19-8-2011, the alleged contemnors have flouted the same which amounts the contempt of this court. At this juncture I would like to refer 1997 SCM R 193 (Naveed Nawazish Malik v. Ghulam Rasool Bhatti and another), in which Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to Article 204 held that this Article, confers jurisdiction on. The Supreme Court and a High Court to punish any person who "abuses, interferes with or obstructs the process of the Court in any way or disobeys any order of the Court". To disobey or disregard an order, direction or process of Court which a person is legally bound to obey, willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court, any act intended to or tend to bring the authority of the Court or the administration of law into disrespect or disrepute and to obstruct, interfere, interrupt or prejudice the process of law or the due course of any judicial proceeding fall within the category of contempt of Court. From time immemorial Courts being the sole institution to dispense justice amongst person and person, and State and person have been venerated, respected and safeguarded against onslaughts which may bring them in disrespect or disrepute. Any attempt to disobey or show disrespect to any order or direction issued by a Court or to interfere or prejudice the administration of law and justice has been not only disfavoured but made punishable. Such a respect and veneration is inherent in the Courts and administration of justice for the unique and enviable position the Courts hold in the governance and administration of the State. In another judgment reported in PLD 2012 SC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to its own judgment reported in PLD 2011 SC 680 held that under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 a person can be proceeded against for contempt of court if he disobeys or even disregards any order of a court, which he is legally bound to obey.
12. In paragraph No,8 of the counter-affidavit, the contemnors have clearly stated that they are ready to produce the documents and also tender their unconditional apology and purged the contempt at initial stage. In the case reported in PLD 1998 SC 823 (Syed Masroor Ahsan and others v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that committal for contempt of court is a weapon to be used sparingly, and always with reference to the interest of the administration of justice.
13. In view of the fact that an unconditional apology has been tendered in the counter-affidavit before issuing show-cause notice and the contemnors are also ready to produce the documents, the apology is accepted and this application is disposed of with strict directions to the them to comply with the orders dated 21-4-2001 and 19-8-2011, failing which, serious action shall be taken by this court without showing any leniency or indulgence in future.