P. C. ;- This petition has been filed impugning the order dated 7th March, 2008, passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, whereby the Application filed by the respondent under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the petitioner to produce all the documents mentioned in the notice dated 12th February, 2008, came to be allowed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the landlord and co-owner of the suit building. The respondent is the mother of the deceased monthly tenant. The suit being RAE Suit No. 316/498/2007 is filed by the petitioner against the respondent inter alia on the ground of non-user. The issues in the suit were framed by the trial Court and directions were issued to the parties to complete the inspection of the documents on or before 9th January, 2008. The respondent has disputed the title of the petitioner and one of the issues framed in the suit is whether the petitioner is the landlord of the suit building. The affidavit of examination-in-chief was filed by the petitioner and the documents produced by him were marked as exhibits. Now the petitioner's cross-examination is in progress. The petitioner alleges that during the cross-examination irrelevant questions were being asked and the respondent is unnecessarily calling upon the petitioner to produce the documents which are not relied upon by him and not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issues.

3. The petitioner's case is that though the matter was part heard, the respondent's Advocate had addressed a notice dated 12th February, 2008 under Order 11, Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code calling upon the petitioner to produce the following documents :

(1) All accounts maintained by the petitioner in respect of the suit building and property and particularly in respect of all outgoings, receipts etc.

(2) Ledger Accounts in respect of the suit building and property as maintained by the petitioner on Computer.

(3) Papers and Proceedings in respect of the suits, decrees in respect whereof have been submitted in Court.

(4) Rent Books, Counter foils of rent books in respect of all the premises in the suit building.

(5) List of tenants paying rent to the petitioner along with the details of the premises in the suit building.

(6) List of premises in possession of the petitioner in the suit building.

4. By letter dated 16th February, 2008 the petitioner declined to comply with the notice of the respondent's Advocate on the ground that the said documents are not referred nor relied upon by the petitioner in the pleading/affidavit.

5. The respondent then, by his Application dated 7th March, 2008 under Order 11, Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code sought an order from the Court to direct the petitioner to produce all the documents as mentioned in the notice dated 12th February, 2008. The petitioner opposed the Application by filing his reply. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge by the impugned order dated 7th March, 2008 allowed the Application of the respondent and directed the petitioner to produce all the documents except the document at serial No.3 as mentioned in the notice dated 12th March, 2008. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has filed this petition.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the oral application by the respondent for production of documents was already refused by the Court by its order dated 13th February, 2008 and the written application having same genesis ought not to have been allowed. The learned Counsel further submitted that the provisions of Order 11, Rule 14 cannot be pressed into service after invocation of Order 11, Rule 16. He contended that the issues in the suit have already been framed on 15th December, 2007 and therefore, Order 11, Rule 14 or 16 could not have been invoked and the petitioner cannot be called upon to produce the documents in cross-examination which are not referred or relied upon by him in his pleadings. The learned Counsel submitted that the trial Court