Bombay High Court
THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.versusS.G. MISTRY
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- GAURI GODSE
Holding
The suit cannot be dismissed under Order XI Rule 21 because the relevant plaint paragraphs were deleted, and the trial court's order rejecting dismissal stands.
Summary
The High Court considered four writ petitions challenging a trial court's refusal to dismiss a suit under Order XI Rule 21 of the CPC on the ground of alleged non‑inspection of documents. The petitioner argued that the plaintiff had failed to produce certain documents referenced in the plaint and had not offered inspection as claimed. The court observed that the plaint paragraphs referring to those documents had been deleted by earlier orders, removing any basis for dismissal. Additionally, the plaintiff could not produce the alleged letter offering inspection. Consequently, the court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s order and dismissed all the writ petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether the suit should be dismissed under Order XI Rule 21 of the CPC for failure to give inspection of documents mentioned in the plaint.
- Whether the trial court's order rejecting the dismissal application is perverse or illegal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XI Rule 21
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
Subjects
- Order XI Rule 21
- document inspection
- dismissal of suit
- Article 227
- Civil Procedure
- Writ jurisdiction
- Bombay High Court
Judgment
5-WP-7269-2015.docx
rrpillai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7269 OF 2015
Capt. D. K. Tewari … Petitioner
Vs.
The Shipping Corporation of … Respondents
India Limited
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9422 OF 2016
The Shipping Corporation of … Petitioner
of India Ltd.
Vs.
S. G. Mistry … Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9421 OF 2016
The Shipping Corporation of … Petitioner
of India Ltd.
Vs.
Capt. D. K. Tiwari … Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7256 OF 2015
S. G. Mistry … Petitioner
Vs.
The Shipping Corporation of … Respondents
India Limited
Mr. Chirag Mody a/w. Ms. Manisha Virkhare and Mr.
Nandkishor Supal and Ms.Trupti Gage i/b. Divya Shah
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHWARI Associates for Petitioner in WP/7269/2015 and Respondent
RAJESHWARI RAMESH
RAMESH PILLAI
PILLAI Date: in WP/9421/2016.
2026.05.08
16:44:12
+0530
1/7
5-WP-7269-2015.docx
Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma a/w. Ms. Vaishali Malekar for the
Petitioner in WP/9421/2016, WP/9422/2016 and for
Respondent in WP7256/2015 and WP/7269/2015.
Mr. Ramdas Hake Patil for the Respondent in
WP/9422/2016.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL 2026
ORDER :
Writ Petition No. 7269 of 2015
1. This petition is filed by the defendant to challenge the
order passed by the trial court rejecting his application for
dismissal of the suit under Order XI Rule 21 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that despite orders passed by this court
when the suit was pending in this court, the plaintiff has not
given inspection of the documents which are mentioned at
Sr. No.16(a) and 16(b) of the Chamber Summons filed by the
defendant. He therefore submits that the suit is liable to be
dismissed under Order XI Rule 21 of the CPC.
2. I have perused the papers of the petition. The
documents at Sr. No. 16(a) and 16(b) form part of the plaint
paragraphs 7 and 8. These paragraphs stand deleted in view
2/7
5-WP-7269-2015.docx
of order dated 22nd July 2008 passed in Chamber Summons
No. 171 of 2008 read with order passed on 18 th January
2010.
3. Since the paragraphs where the said documents are
referred to in the plaint already stand deleted, I do not see
any reason for dismissing the suit on the ground of non-
compliance. The trial court has therefore rightly rejected the
notice of motion of the defendant praying for dismissal of the
suit.
4. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned
order warranting any interference in the exercise of
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to interfere with the impugned order.
5. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Writ Petition No. 9421 of 2016
6. This writ petition is filed by the original plaintiff to
challenge the observations in paragraph 5 of the order dated
9th April 2015 passed in Notice of Motion No. 4679 of 2014.
By the impugned order the trial court has rejected the
defendant’s application for dismissal of the suit under Order
3/7
5-WP-7269-2015.docx
XI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). The
plaintiff is aggrieved by the observations in paragraph 5 of
the said order, where the learned Judge has referred to non-
compliance on the part of the plaintiff to give inspection of the
documents. These observations in paragraph 5 refers to
paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-reply of the plaintiff.
7. I have perused paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-reply. The
said paragraph refers to the letter dated 18 th February 2010
which is relied upon by the plaintiff to support its submission
that inspection of documents was offered to the defendant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any
such letter on record which will indicate that inspection was
offered. In such circumstances, I do not see any reason to
interfere with the impugned order with reference to the
observations in paragraph 5.
8. By a separate order the Writ Petition No. 7269 of 2015
filed by the defendant challenging the same order, is
dismissed. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with
the observations in paragraph 5 of the impugned order, in the
exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
4/7
5-WP-7269-2015.docx
9. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Writ Petition No. 7256 of 2015
10. This petition is filed by the defendant to challenge the
order passed by the trial court rejecting his application for
dismissal of the suit under Order XI Rule 21 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that despite orders passed by this court
when the suit was pending in this court, the plaintiff has not
given inspection of the documents which are mentioned at
Sr. No.16(a) and 16(b) of the Chamber Summons filed by the
defendant. He therefore submits that the suit is liable to be
dismissed under Order XI Rule 21 of the CPC.
11. I have perused the papers of the petition. The
document at Sr. No. 16(a) and 16(b) form part of the plaint
paragraphs 7 and 8. These paragraphs stand deleted in view
of order dated 22nd July 2008 passed in Chamber Summons
No. 69 of 2008 read with order passed on 18 th January 2010.
12. Since the paragraphs where the said documents are
referred to in the plaint already stand deleted, I do not see
any reason for dismissing the suit on the ground of non-
5/7
5-WP-7269-2015.docx
compliance. The trial court has therefore rightly rejected the
notice of motion of the defendant praying for dismissal of the
suit.
13. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned
order warranting any interference in the exercise of
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to interfere with the impugned order.
14. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Writ Petition No. 9422 of 2016
15. This writ petition is filed by the original plaintiff to
challenge the observations in paragraph 5 of the order dated
9th April 2015 passed in Notice of Motion No. 4619 of 2014.
By the impugned order the trial court has rejected the
defendant’s application for dismissal of the suit under Order
XI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). The
plaintiff is aggrieved by the observations in paragraph 5 of
the said order, where the learned Judge has referred to non-
compliance on the part of the plaintiff to give inspection of the
documents. These observations in paragraph 5 refer to
paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-reply of the plaintiff.
6/7
5-WP-7269-2015.docx
16. I have perused paragraph 7 of the affidavit in reply. The
said paragraph refers to the letter dated 18 th February 2010
which is relied upon by the plaintiff to support its submission
that inspection of documents was offered to the defendant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any
such letter on record which will indicate that inspection was
offered. In such circumstances, I do not see any reason to
interfere with the impugned order with reference to the
observations in paragraph 5.
17. By a separate order Writ Petition No. 7256 of 2015 filed
by the defendant challenging the same order is dismissed.
18. I do not see any reason to interfere with paragraph 5 of
the impugned order, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
19. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
7/7
Checking your session…