1962 AprU 25 THE NATIONAL BANK OF GREECE . S.A. V. PARASKBVAS MlTMDES AND [WILSON, P., ZEKIA, VASSILIADES and JostpwDEs, JJ.] THE NATIONAL BANK OFGREECE, S.A, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. PARASKEVAS M1TSIDES, DEBTOR, AND ANOTHER ANOTHER Respondents (Defendants). (Civil Appeal No. 4353). Practice—Discovery of documents—Meaning of phrase "documents re lating to any matter Inquestion therein" appearing under0.28, r. I of the Civil Procedure Rules—Object of discovery of documentsProperdiscoveryessential beforea party proceeds to trial. ι The respondents (defendants), applied on 16, March 1961, to the District Court of Nicosia for an order of discovery under 0.28 r.l asking for (
- a)the regulations of the plaintiff Bank regulating the duties of employees towards its customers and people pledging goods with the Bank as security for money advanced and (
- b)to inspect the documents set out in the affidavit. The order granted the relief sought in (
- a)but not in (b). ·.,·.* „ ,• The High Court accepted the reasons given by the President of the District Court, and dismissed the appeal. Held : (I) Before a party proceeds to trial he should have proper discovery.
(2)The meaning of the words "documents relating to any matter in question therein", appearing in Order 28, r.l of the Civil" Procedure-Rules is correctly set forth in the Annual Practice, 1962, p.719 (infra).
(3)The reasons given in the judgment of the President of the District Court are correct and the President drew the proper inference from the material before him. Appealdismissed. Appeal. Appeal against the order for discovery and inspection of the District Court of Nicosia (Stavrinides P.D.C.) dated 40 the 3rd October, 1961 (Action No. 2701/60) under 0.28 r.l of theCivil Procedure Rules inan action for £3,791.240 mils by virtue of a contract of credit dated 17th December,1953. G. Tornaritis for the appellant. Chr.P. Mttsides for the respondent. The judgment of the Court wasread by: WILSON, P. : This isan appeal bytheplaintiffs from an order madeonOctober 3,1961,bythePresident ofthe District Court of Nicosia, upon an application by the defendants filed March 16, 1961. Theorder granted the defendants the relief asked in (
- a)infra and refused that sought under (b). They asked for an order requiringtheplaintiffs, within seven days from that date, to make discovery on oath of thedocuments which are or have been in their possession or power relating to the matters in question in theaction and particucularly, (
- a)the regulations of the plaintiff Bank regulating the duties of employees towards its customers and people pledginggoods withtheBank assecurityformoney advanced; (
- b)to inspect the documents set out in the affidavit for discovery dated July 21, 1961,andthedocuments applied forin the first and immediately preceding paragraph. At the hearing of the application counsel for the defendants abandoned a request for production of the documents because he had part of the.information he had requested given in an affidavit by one Kyprianou, an employee ofthe plaintiffs, filed in support of the motion heardbythe learned President. Upon the understanding that the defendants were not asking for the production of the documents the learned President ordered the plaintiffs to make a statement onoath seven daysfrom thedate of the orderasto whether it hasor have had at anytime intheirpossession,custodyorpowerthe regulations regulating the Bank's duties or duties of itsemployees towards their customers and/or people pledging goods with the Bank as Security for money advanced. The order wassought under 0.28, r.l,of the Civil Procedure Rules which comes under the genual heading of "Discovery Inspection1.' and reads in part as follows : 41 1962 April 25 THE NATIONAL BANK OF GREECE S.A. V. PARASKEVAS MlTSIDBS AND ANOTHER 1962 April 25 THE NATIONAL BANK OF GREECE 3.A. V. PARASKEVAS MlTSlDES AND ANOTHER Wilson, Ρ "Any party may, without filing any affidavit apply to the Court or a Judge for an order directing the other party to any cause or matter tojnake discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his posses sion or power relating to any matter in question therein.. We are not concerned here with the interpretation of the words "relating t o " matters in question in respect of "production" of documents, this point being abandoned at the commencement of the hearing of the appeal. We do have to consider, however, their meaning in relation to dis covery on oath under the rule quoted. It is important that a party should have proper discovery before proceeding to trial and we think for purposes of this appeal the interpretation of the words "relating to" is correct ly set forth in the Annual Practice 1962, p.719 which reads : "Documents are relevant which may either directly or indirect ly enable the party seeking discovery either to advance his own case or damage that of his adversary, or which may fairly lead to a train of enquiry which may have either of these two consequences". After listening carefully to the arguments of counsel we are of the opinion that the reasons given in the judgment by the President of the District Court are correct and he drew the proper inference from the material filed. It is of course necessary that the documents in respect of which discovery is sought should relate to the matters in question in theaction. For these reasons, in our opinion, 'the appeal must be dismissed. We think that the costs in this case should be to the defendant-* in any event. Appealdismissed. 42