1. The original petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

i. to call for the records in I.A. No. 3436 /2011 in O.S. No.43/2009 on the file of the Ist Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam.

ii. To set aside Ext.P6 order.

iii. To issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction with this Honorable Court deem fit

iv. To award cost of proceedings.

2. Petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 43 of 2009 on the file of the Ist Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit is one for recovery of money and mandatory injunction. Ext. P1 is the copy of the plaint. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of trading sea food including tuna, and its operations involve procurement of sea food from various countries and also supply to other countries. It had business transactions for a period of time from 2006 to 2007 with the 1st and 2nd defendants, and on several occasions it placed orders with the 1st defendant to various persons identified by the plaintiff. According to the terms of each contract, plaintiff was entitled to a commission of 5 % on the sale price of each consignment. Under the purchase contracts entered between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant on various dates, the 1st defendant exported yellow fin tuna fish through the 2nd defendant, to M/s. Conserves Isabel De Galicia SL, Spain. Such exports were conducted from 30.09.2006 to 11.05.2007. However the commission payable to the plaintiff in respect of the consignment under the exports made on the basis of purchase contracts with the plaintiff was not paid, is the basis of the suit claim for money from the defendants 1 and 2. The 1st and 2nd defendants are license holders registered with the 3rd defendant, a statutory body, which regulated marine export activities in India. In view of the non-honouring of the commitments made by the 1st defendant in the course of export of marine products arising from the transactions with the plaintiff, a decree of mandatory injunction has to be passed directing the 3rd defendant to cancel the export registration and export licenses issued to the 1st and 2nd defendants, was the further case of the plaintiff. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint.

3. Suit claims were resisted by defendants1 and 2 the petitioners herein filing a written statement disputing the case of the plaintiff. The defendants contended that the 1st defendant never entered into any contract with the plaintiff for supply of yellowfin tuna fish to M/s. Conservas Isabel De Galicia SL, Spain and that neither the 1st defendant nor the 2nd defendant effected any shipment to M/s. Conservas Isabel De Galicia SL, Spain against the alleged purchase contracts with the plaintiff.

4. The trial of the above case is now in progress. After examination of the Managing Director of the plaintiff as PW1 in the case, the plaintiff moved Ext. P4 application for a direction to the defendants to produce the documents listed in that petition. The defendants resisted that application filing Ext.P5 objections. The learned Sub Judge negativing the objections raised by the defendants vide Ext. P6 order directed them to produce the documents listed in Ext.P4 petition or to file an affidavit. Ext.P6 order is challenged as unsustainable and illegal by the petitioners/defendants invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. I heard the counsel on both sides.

6. The learned Sub Judge has gone wrong in forming an opinion that the documents sought for, covered by Ext.P4 application of the plaintiff, are in the possession of the defendants, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners urging that such a view had been taken ignoring the categorical and unequivocal admissions made by the managing director of the plaintiff examined as PW1 in the case. Adverting to Ext.P3, copy of the deposition statement of PW1, it is contended by the counsel that he had admitted in cross examination, of having had the original