( 1 ) THE short facts leading to the present revision are as under :

( 2 ) THE present petitioner as plaintiff had filed a suit against the State being Special Civil Suit No. 157 of 1977, for recovery of Rs. 1,77,397. 57 for extra work done and for damage on account of termination of the construction contract on the part of the respondent-defendant.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of this suit the petitioner served the respondent with a notice of production in respect of three specific letters. Such letters have been addressed by specific officials of the P. W. D. and also addressed to some specific officers of the P. W. D. Since the notice of production was not complied with, the petitioner as plaintiff gave an application Exh. 73, for discovery on oath of the specified documents such application being under Order 11, Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code. This application was heard by the trial Court and by order below Exh. 73, the same was rejected. It is against the order of rejection that the present revision has been preferred.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed and set aside inasmuch as the same is based on assumptions and inferences drawn by the trial Court and is not based on any evidence or any pica on the part of the defendant and therefore against the principles of law. It may be borne in mind that the plaintiffs suit is for recovery of the specific amount of money for extra work done and for damages on account of the termination of the contract on the part of the defendant. It appears that the defendant has withheld certain amount for work done by the plaintiff on the ground that the work done was defective, whereas the plaintiffs case is that there was leakage of water from the pipelines on account of the fact that the pipes as well as their joints (which were supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff under the terms of the contract) were not of the requisite quality and were defective and hence the leakage.

( 5 ) IT is, therefore, obvious that the question of whether the material supplied by the defendant for the work of construction of pipeline was defective and substandard or not is a vital question of fact for the determination of the issues arising in the suit. It was for this reason the plaintiff sought to rely upon the three specific letters exchanged between the officers in the departments of the defendant.

( 6 ) ). In this context, the plain reading of the impugned order at para 2 thereof indicates that the trial Court was fully aware and conscious that it is well settled "that the documents which can throw light on the point which is in controversy between the parties can be said to be relevant documents and discovery to such documents is required to be given by one party to the other party". However, this principle has been clearly ignored by the trial court.

( 7 ) THE trial Court has upheld the contention of the defendant in respect of a simple plea that the letters are confidential letters and confidential letters cannot be produced and discovery in respect thereof cannot be granted. The trial Court has not assigned any cogent and or logical reason for upholding this bare plea. It must be borne in mind that the trial Court was conscious of the petitioners plea that merely by labelling the letters in question as "confidential Letters" the same cannot be excluded from the purview of Order 11 Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court was also aware that the petitioner had specifically contended that no specific or particular privilege in respect of the letters in question had been claimed by the defendant, and that there was no claim and or contention on the part of the defendant that disclosure would be prejudicial to public interest and or to national security and or opposed to public policy and or detrimental to the interest of the defendant in any other manner. In fact there is no reason (for the confidentiality) disclosed