Arun Kumar Jha, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2019 passed in Eviction Suit No. 04 of 2012 by learned Munsif 2nd, Munger whereby and whereunder the application dated 06.04.2019 filed by the respondent under Order 16 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) has been allowed.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the parties is that the petitioner as plaintiff has filed Eviction Suit bearing No. 04 of 2012 beseeching the learned trial court to pass a decree of eviction against the defendant/respondent apart from seeking a decree of recovery of Rs.2400/- which became due towards rent. The defendant/respondent appeared and filed his written statement opposing the contention of the plaintiff. It further transpires that as the defendant did not comply the order under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, his defence was struck off vide order dated 09.08.2016. It further transpires that during the trial, the defendant filed a petition on 06.04.2019 in the learned trial court submitting that plaintiff has deposed in his suit that she has purchased the suit property from the defendant after taking loan and also taking some money from the account of her husband. So, she may be directed to produce in Court the paper regarding the withdrawal of money from bank account as well as regarding taking of loan. The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the said petition opposing the contention. The learned Munsif 2nd, Munger vide order dated 15.10.2019 allowed the petition filed on behalf of the defendant/respondent directing the plaintiff to produce all the documents as asked by the defendant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and unjust. The learned trial court did not consider that at the instance of the defendant, it cannot compel the plaintiff to produce certain documents. It is for the plaintiff to prove her case with the evidence she thinks fit and proper and not according to the dictates of the defendant. The learned trial court also did not take into consideration the fact that it is the case of the plaintiff that she has purchased the land in question from the defendant and he has not challenged the sale deed so whether the defendant can now demand producing the evidence regarding receipt of money from which she has purchased the suit property. Since the learned trial court has not considered all the facts and circumstances, the impugned order is an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff is required to prove landlord tenant relationship and if she fails in her duty, being an eviction suit, her case would fail. She is not supposed to prove her title in the eviction suit. The learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tribhuvanshankar vs. Amrutlal reported in (2014) 2 SCC 788 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the eviction suit, inquiry is to be limited to prove the landlord tenant relationship and there is no need to prove title by the landlord to prove the landlord tenant relationship. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The petition has been filed by the defendant/respondent under Order 16 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code and the said provision empowers the Court to direct any person present in court to give evidence or produce documents in their possession or power. Further under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code Court can direct any party to produce the documents relating to any matter in question in such suit. Learned counsel thus submits that the impugned order is perfectly legal. Further when the defendant/respondent has taken a plea that no consideration money passed i