C.R. 51 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. 51 of 2009 Date of decision:- 19.11.2009 Karnail Singh petitioner vs Mewa Singh Respondent Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate. Mr. SS Salar, Advocate. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.S.BEDI,J. Vide impugned order dated 9.12.2008, an application filed under Section 30 read with Section 151 CPC by defendant- petitioner for a direction to the plaintiff- respondent to produce the statement of accounts of Oriental bank of Commerce, Bagrian and the original copies of the sale deeds by virtue of which the plaintiff- respondent had sold and purchased the land, as stated by him in the cross-examination, stands dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted as to for what purpose the said documents are required to be produced, submitted that the plaintiff- respondent has filed a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.5 lacs along with interest on the basis of a pronote and receipt, which has been procured by the plaintiff- respondent in connivance with commission agents of defendant Pritam Singh and Jagtar Singh. The petitioner has also filed a suit for rendition of accounts against the said commission agents. The plaintiff is a close relation of said commission agents Pritam Singh and Jagtar Singh, who had got fiduciary relations with Pritam Singh C.R. 51 of 2009 2 and Jagtar Singh and the attesting witnesses of the pronote are closely related to the commission agents. I have also gone through the written statement, which has been filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner wants to establish from the said documents that the plaintiff- respondent did not have any money available with him to hand over the same to the defendant on the date when the alleged pronote, forming foundation of the suit, was allegedly executed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the court, allowing an application for production of documents, is guided by the provisions of CPC under Orders 11 and 13 read with the provisions of Section 30 CPC. It is specifically provided under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC that discovery shall not be ordered unless until the court is of the opinion that the documents, sought to be produced, are necessary for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. The trial court has formed an opinion that the documents, which are sought to be produced, are not of any relevance to the suit, which is a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt. No ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. Dismissed. However, it is observed that the right of the defendant- petitioner to produce or tender any document will not be prejudiced by the dismissal of the present revision petition or by the impugned order. November 19 ,2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE