JUDGMENT :

BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.

1. This revisional application has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 23rd February, 2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 6th Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 840 of 2018 rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for discovery, production and inspection of documents under Order XI Rule 12, 14 and 15 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE .

2. The brief fact of the case is that petitioners filed a suit being Title suit No. 840 of 2018 for declaration and permanent injunction against the opposite parties contending, inter alia, that one Probhat Kumar Roy, since deceased, purchased the suit property in benami of defendant No. 1 Mili Roy by dint of a deed of sale no. 119 for the year 1995. The opposite party No. 2, Himanshu Roy also filed a suit against petitioner No. 1 praying for a decree for eviction of licensee being Title suit No. 875 of 2018. Both the aforesaid suits are being tried analogously by the learned trial court. The petitioners filed an application under Order XI Rule 12, 14 and 15 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE for discovery, production and inspection of original deeds being No. 119 of 1995 and No. 1774 of 2015 relied by opposite party no. 2 in his suit for eviction of licensee. Upon hearing the learned trial court rejected such application filed by the petitioners.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order the petitioner has preferred the present revisional application.

4. Mr. Abhisek Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that at the time filing of the suit the plaintiff had obtained the certified copy of the impugned deed however for better appreciation, the original deeds are required to be inspected by the petitioners which led to filing of the application under Order XI Rule 12, 14 and 15 of the Code. He further submits referring to the provisions of Order VIII and Rule 1A of the Code that since the defendants have also relied on such documents it was incumbent duty of the defendants to produce such documents. Further referring to the provisions of Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code he submits that before the settlement of issues the parties are required to produce all documentary evidence in original before the court and, therefore, the prayer made by the petitioners for discovery, production and inspection of documents is innocuous one which should have been allowed by the trial court in the interest of justice. To buttress his submissions Mr. Banerjee relies on a decision of this Hon’ble Court passed in Gyanti Devi & Ors vs. Shanti Devi, 2012 (3) CLT 404. In light of his aforesaid submissions, he prays that defendants be directed to produce the original deeds which are relevant in the suit and liberty be given to the petitioner to inspect such documents.

5. In reply to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Soujanaya Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 submits that as per the averments made in the plaint the petitioner is very much aware of the contentions of the deeds and the execution of such deed has never been challenged by the plaintiff rather entitlement has been challenged and, therefore, inspection of original deeds is uncalled for. The provision embodied under Order XI Rule 12 of the Code is discretionary power given to the court and it has to decide whether to allow or reject such application for inspection basing on requirement in the suit. In the aforesaid backdrop, he submits that the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under