IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6683 of 2009(O) ------------------------- OS.181/2007 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONER: -------------- GIRESHKUMAR, S/O.VASU, KANIYARAKKAL HOUSE, KACHERI AMSOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT: --------------- K.M.MUSTHAFA, S/O.MOIDEEN KOYA, 'FATHIMAS', KACHERI AMSOM, KOZHIKODE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 6683 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the second defendant in OS No. 181/07 on the file of the court to the Munsiff of Kozhikode-I. The suit was listed for trial and evidence of the plaintiff was taken. Thereafter the petitioner filed IA No.416/09 under Rule 14 of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the plaintiff to produce certain documents. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that the petitioner pointed out the necessity of the production of subsidiary title deeds in the written statement itself. But, the plaintiff did not produce those documents. It is also stated that the petitioner thought, plaintiff being an Advocate, he will produce the necessary documents at the time of trial. But, he did not produce the documents. He was examined as PW1. It is also stated that the petitioner has applied for certified copy of the documents and it may take time to get the documents. On these reasons, the application was filed by the petitioner for production of the documents by the plaintiff. 2. The court below thought that there is no sufficient ground to entertain the application at the fag end of the trial of the suit and the WPC No. 6683 OF 2009 -:2:- application was accordingly dismissed. The present application is filed by the petitioner under Rule 14 of Order XI. Rule 14 provides that it shall be lawful for the court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the court shall think right. Rule 14 confers the power on the court to summon any document. It does not confer any right on a party to call for a document at any time. The court below rightly thought that at this stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to call upon the other party to produce documents. I do not think that the order impugned was passed without jurisdiction, warranting interference in a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Writ Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE ttb WPC No. 6683 OF 2009 -:3:-