( 1 ) BY this revision, petitioner-Bank has assailed the order passed below Ex. 56 by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) at Porbandar on 22-4- 1985 in Regular Civil Suit No. 27 of 1983. Thus, the petitioners have invoked the provisions of Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code ("code" for short hereinafter ).

( 2 ) LEARNED Advocate Shri K. M. Patel appeared for the petitioners while learned Advocate Shri D. G. Karia appeared for the opponent in this revision.

( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate Shri Patel, for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the impugned order is totally invalid and illegal. His contention is repelled by the learned Advocate Shri Karia for the opponnt.

( 4 ) IN fact the question which has arisen in this revision is very short, but very interesting. The short question is, whether the impugned order passed below Ex. 56 is legal and valid or not. In order to appreciate the merits of this short question, it would be necessary to set out a few relevant and material facts leading to the rise of the present revision.

( 5 ) THE present opponent filed the above suit against the present petitioner-Union Bank of India. The parties are hereinafter addressed to as "plaintiff" and "defendant" for the sake of convenience and brevity. The plaintiff, in short, by filing the suit challenged the order of the defendant- bank asking him to repay allowances paid to him which were, as such, not admissible as per the policy of the Bank. The plaintiff was working as a special Assistant, in Jamnagar Branch, of the defendant-Bank, in February 1918. By letter dated 8-2-1981, the defendant-Bank offered him promotion as Officer in the Junior Management Grade/scale-I. The said letter contained details of basic pay and dearness allowance which would be paid to the plaintiff on his promotion as Junior Management Grade/scale-I Officer. It was also conveyed in the said letter by the Bank that other allowances will be admissible as per the policy of the Bank from time to time on all India basis. The plaintiff thereafter, by his letter dated 5-3-1981 requested the defendant-Bank to furnish him with the details of allowances which would be admissible to him on his promotion as Officer. The defendant-Bank communicated by letter dated 19-3-1981 that on his promotion he would be entitled to Rs. 112. 50 as House Rent Allowance, Rs. 167. 60 as Personal allowance and Rs. 104. 60 as Temporary Dearness Allowance. The basic salary which the plaintiff was drawing at the time of his promotion was at the maximum of his scale. On promotion of the plaintiff, he was to be given fitment in Junior Management Grade/scale-I Officer, which carried the maximum basic salary of Rs. 1800. 00 in the relevant pay scale. The plaintiff opted for promotion and came to be promoted with effect from 4-4-1985 and he was posted as such to work as officer in the Junior Management Grade/scale- i in Porbandar Branch. Thereafter the defendant-Bank found that there was a bond fide mistake committed by the Bank while carrying out the fitment of the plaintiff in the Junior Management grade/scale-I inso far as the Personal allowance on promotion was concerned. Having discovered the mistake of over-payment after promotion, pursuant to the audit objection, the defendant- bank was pleased to direct that the plaintiff was not entitled to the Personal allowance of Rs. 167. 60 from January, 1983. It was further decided by the bank that the excess amount of Rs. 3. 339. 60 should be recovered from the plaintiff.

( 6 ) THE facts so far stated are no longer in controversy and the one which is in controversy between the parties is in a very narrow compass.

( 7 ) THE plaintiff preferred an application at Ex. 56 under Order XI, Rule 12 of the Code for discovery of documents which are elaborately listed in it. This application was submitted in the trial Court on 17-12-1984. The application ex. 56 was vehemently and strongly resisted by the defendant-Bank by filing written objections at Ex. 60. A