1 wp 6791.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6791 OF 2011 1. Kisan Vidya Prasarak Sanstha, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. 2. The President, Kisan Vidya Prasarak Sanstha, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. 3. The Secretary, Kisan Vidya Prasarak Sanstha, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Dhule. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Region, Nashik Revenue Commissioner Campus, Nashik Road, Nashik. 3. Smt. Suchitra Laxman Vaidya, Age : 39 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o C/o Sunil Madhukar Bahalkar 91, Suyog Nagar, Wadi Bhokar Road, Deopur, Dhule. 2 wp 6791.11 4. Chhagan Kautik Mahale, Age : Years, Occu. : Service, R/o B. R. Ambedkar Junior College of Education, Boradi, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. .. Respondents Shri V. D. Sapkal, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri S. S. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 4 is deleted. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . At the outset Shri Sapkal, the learned counsel seeks leave to delete the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 is deleted at the risk of petitioners. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 3. The present respondent No. 3 has filed a suit against the present petitioners and one Shri Chhagan Mahale claiming relief of declaration that the order of reversion is nonest and for mandatory and perpetual injunction. The issues are framed and the plaintiff has led the evidence on affidavit. Thereafter filed 3 wp 6791.11 an application purportedly U/O XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking production of documents from the petitioners. The Trial Court in a four line order allowed the said application. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 4. Shri Sapkal, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the application is devoid of any particulars. The documents referred therein which are sought to be produced are not referred in the plaint. The application does not state about the relevancy of the said documents. The said application is also not supported by an affidavit. The Trial Court without recording any reasons has allowed the said application. The Court also has not arrived at any satisfaction about the relevancy of said documents. In such circumstances the said order is not sustainable. 5. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the application states about the relevancy of documents and it specifically states that the same is in possession of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 i. e. management. Though the court has not given reasons, still the contents of the application are clear and self explanatory. No error has been committed by the Court in allowing the application. 4 wp 6791.11 6. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the application and order. The order is bereft of any reasons. The Trial Court has not given any reasons for allowing the said application. It seems that even the say filed by the petitioner to the said application has not been considered. Reasons are the life line of any judicial order. They depict the application of mind of the Court concerned passing the order. The order seems to have been passed in a very casual manner without taking into consideration the relevant facts. The provisions of Order XI Rule 14 lays down that the request for production of document has to be made on oath. It is to be specified that the custody of the said documents is with the person against whom the order is being made and that the said documents are relating to any matter in question in the suit. It is imperative for the Court to arrive at the satisfaction as laid down under Rule 14 of Order XI before passing any order directing the party to produce the documents. The party seeking production of document also has other avenues as laid down under Order XI Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the same will have to be on the compliance of requirement laid down in the respective rules of the said order. 5 wp 6791.11 7. As the impugned order does not satisfy the test as contemplated under Rule 14 of Order XI, the said order cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. In the result the impugned order passed below Exhibit 48 is quashed and set aside. The plaintiff is at liberty to file any such application or take any such steps for calling the document, which the Court shall consider it on its own merits. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11