Co-operative Arbitration Court & Production of Documents

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice K. Babu of the Kerala High Court in the case of Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sebastian P. George and Ors. (2025) dismissed a writ petition challenging orders of the Co-operative Arbitration Court, particularly upholding the direction to produce election-related documents for adjudicating an election dispute. 

What was the Background of Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sebastian P. George and Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner, Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., held elections to its Managing Committee on 16.12.2023. 
• Respondents 1 to 4 contested the election but lost, while Respondents 8 to 20 were the returned (elected) candidates. 
• The unsuccessful candidates (Respondents 1 to 4) challenged the election by filing ARC No.6/2024 before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 16.01.2024. 
• The defendants in the arbitration case raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, arguing that the election petition was filed beyond the statutory period as the last date was 15.01.2024. 
• Since 15.01.2024 was declared a public holiday, the Arbitration Court relied on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and held that filing on 16.01.2024 was within the limitation period, rejecting the objection vide Ext.P8 order dated 27.06.2025. 
• The election petitioners alleged that approximately 2000 persons included in the final voters' list were from outside the jurisdictional limit of the Bank. 
• Based on this allegation, the election petitioners filed an application (Ext.P6) seeking production of various documents including membership registers, identity card registers, election records, and enquiry reports. 
• The Arbitration Court allowed the application vide Ext.P9 order dated 11.09.2025, directing the bank to produce the requested documents. 
• The Co-operative Bank, represented by its Secretary, filed the present writ petition challenging the document production order, citing difficulties in producing voluminous documents. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The petitioner did not press the challenge to Ext.P8 order and confined the challenge only to Ext.P9 order directing document production. 
• The Court held that the documents sought were relevant for adjudication as the election petition specifically alleged that around 2000 persons from outside the jurisdictional limit were included in the final voters' list. 
• The Court rejected the argument that a roving enquiry is not permissible, stating that the Arbitration Court must allow parties to lead relevant evidence based on pleadings. 
• Under Section 70(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the Co-operative Arbitration Court has the same powers as a Civil Court and can invoke Order XI Rule 14 of CPC to order production of relevant documents. 
• The Court found no irregularities in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition in limine. 
• The Court noted that the Co-operative Bank (not a contesting party) filed the petition citing difficulties, while none of the actual contesting respondents challenged the order, which further diminished the petition's merit. 
• Despite dismissal, the Court granted two weeks' time to produce the documents required by the Arbitration Court.

What is Order XI Rule 14 of CPC? 

About: 

• Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a crucial procedural provision that allows courts to order the production of documents during the pendency of a civil suit.  
• This rule serves as a vital discovery mechanism to ensure that all relevant documents are made available to the court for fair adjudication.  

Statutory Framework and Discretionary Power: 

• Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC is a procedural law principle on discovery and inspection in civil suits. 
• The rule empowers the Court to direct any party to the suit to produce documents within their power or control. 
• The language "it shall be lawful" is permissive and not mandatory, conferring discretion and not a duty on the Court. 

Temporal Scope – Limited to Pendency of Suit: 

• The power under Rule 14 can be exercised only "during the pendency of any suit." 
• The order of production must be directed while the suit is pending and not after it ends. 
• This rule cannot be invoked once a plaint has been rejected. 
• Once a suit is dismissed at the threshold, procedures applicable to pending suits become irrelevant. 

Relevancy of Documents – Issues at Stake: 

• Documents must be relevant to the issues in contention in the suit. 
• Documents should bear a direct or indirect relationship to facts in contention or issues to be resolved. 
• This prevents fishing expeditions for collateral or irrelevant information. 
• The party seeking production must establish a prima facie case of materiality and relevance. 

Requirement of Affidavit or Oath: 

• The Court can order production under oath to ensure solemn affirmation. 
• This safeguard ensures produced documents are authentic and trustworthy. 
• It minimizes the risk of tampering or forgery. 

Judicial Discretion in Handling Produced Documents: 

• The Court can "deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just." 
• The Court may accept them as evidence, overlook them for lack of relevance, or subject them to further examination. 

Procedural Character – Not a Substantive Right: 

• Order XI Rule 14 is a procedural tool and does not grant substantive rights. 
• The Court must be satisfied that the interest of justice demands such production. 

Limitations and Alternate Avenues: 

• The reach of Rule 14 is limited by the existence of other procedural alternatives. 
• Rule 14 should be approached only when such direct option is not possible.