The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for identifying the disputed property before seeking discovery and the discretion of the court in allowing discovery at a given stage.

1. This revision by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 201/78 is against the order of the trial court in I.A. No. 293/79, an application filed under Order XI R.12 CPC.

2. The suit was for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from trespassing into two separate one-acre plots in R. S. No.1/IA. The plaintiff's father had obtained 27 acres of land in the survey number (plaint A schedule) under a partition deed of 1942 and he was in direct possession from 1953. Out of the above 12.02 acres were to be surrendered as excess under Act I of 1964. The father was desirous of giving the remaining 14.98 acres (plaint B schedule) to his four sons, including the plaintiff, and land revenue was accordingly being paid in the sons' names. But the father died in 1977 and the property devolved on his widow and six children. The defendants had requested the father during his life time to give them some part of land instead of surrendering the same as excess, but that request had been turned down. They were ever thereafter trying to get at the land, and on 15-10-78 when the plaintiff went to the property with labourers, the defendants unsuccessfully obstructed. They however threatended that renewed efforts would be made to trespass upon the land. The defendants had therefore to be restrained from entering on the two acres of land described in the C schedule, forming part of the B schedule.

3. Apart from denying the plaint allegations the defendants, in their written statement, contended that the C schedule property could not be identified at all by the descriptions therein, and it was therefore proper that the plaintiff be directed to take out a commission for the purpose. After such identification, the defendants would file an additional written statement. The plaintiffs' father had put them in possession of the two acres in 1958 and it was the defendants who were paying revenue thereafter. They had no need to trespass on two acres, and they had never attempted to do so.

4. It appears that the plaint was thereafter amended so as to seek recovery on the strength of title, and the defendants filed an additional written statement reiterating the plea that the identity of C schedule had first to be established. The defendants also pointed out that the plaintiff's refusal/ failure to take out a commission for the purpose was indicative of an attempt to fish out a case for which there was no factual basis.

5. The plaintiff then filed the I. A. for an order directing the defendants to make discovery on oath of the documents in their possession, alleging that they were deliberately suppressing information about the documents under which they had obtained the two acres, in order to bide time for creating false documents. The defendants filed a counter objecting to the discovery again on the ground that the suit property had not been identified, and pointing out that the plaintiff had extensive properties in the area and in the same survey number. They would produce documents in their possession once the identity of the property was fixed up.

6. The learned Munsiff held that in the nature of the objections raised and in view of the fact that a specific issue had been framed "regarding the identity of the property, the measurements and boundaries", it was not necessary to direct the defendants "to produce the documents at this time". The court was not disposed to accept the argument of counsel for the plaintiff that discovery would be a better method for identifying the property than issue of a commission. The defendants had undertaken to produce the documents before the commissioner and the court therefore "closed" the application with the observation that it would be sufficient if the defendants produced the documents before the commissioner at the time of inspection.

7. Mr Madhavan Nambiar's submission on behalf of the petitioner that the court below has confused discovery under R.12 with production of documents under R.14 seems to be technica