SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. The appellant (defendant in the suit) has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 20.07.2015 whereby the application filed by the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) under Order 11 Rules 12, 14 and 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to produce on oath the documents referred to in the said application.

2. The appellant has contended that the respondent, to prove its claim for damages, had to produce evidence on its own and the appellant could not be compelled to produce documents in respect of issues, the onus of which is on the respondent. The appellant has further contended that an order for production of documents could only be passed only in respect of documents relating to any matter in question in the suit and as there were neither any pleadings nor any issue with regard to the claim of damages so there could not be any order for production of the documents. It is contended that the documents, the production of which is sought by the respondent, are accounts and sales related documents of the appellant and in the absence of any pleadings/issue in respect of damages, the appellant could not be directed to produce his accounts and other related documents. It is contended that the respondent had to plead specific facts constituting the nature and extent of damages or loss caused to it and the appellant could not be called upon to produce his accounts related information so as prove his defence in the negative. It is further contended that the appellant has already stated on oath that the documents sought to be produced could not be located by him and as such there could be no direction for production more so in view of the fact that non compliance of the said direction could gravely prejudice the appellant and his defence would be liable to be struck of under order 11 rule 21 CPC.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the documents are very much in the power and possession of the appellant and he has rightly been directed to produce the same. It is further contended that the documents are relating to the mattes in question in the suit and their production can be sought/directed. Without prejudice to the submissions on merits, the learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the appeal contended that the impugned order is not an order deciding any rights of the parties and is not an order in the nature of a judgment having a bearing on the rights and liabilities of the parties and thus no appeal is maintainable.

4. Before we go on to decide the merits of the appeal, we are examining the preliminary objection raised with regard to maintainability of the appeal. In case we conclude that the appeal is not maintainable, we would not be required to examine the impugned order on merits.

5. Encompassed in the question whether the present appeal is maintainable is the question whether the consequences of dismissal of suit or of striking of the defence as prescribed by Order 11 Rule 21 can follow in respect of failure to comply with directions, to produce documents, issued under Order 11 Rule 14 of the CPC.

6. In Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, (1981) 4 SCC 8, the Supreme Court held that for an order to be appealable, it has to satisfy the requirements of a judgment in other words, the order is such that it affects vital and valuable rights of the parties and decides matters of moment.

7. In the present case, the appellant has been directed to produce documents in exercise of powers under order 11 rule 14 CPC. The order directing production of documents does not by itself affect any vital and valuable rights of the parties and does not decide matters of moment. If the consequences of failure to produce documents in compliance of the order under order 11 rule 14 were severe, then situation may be different. To determine what are t