1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.59/2011 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kolencherry approached this Court with the Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Munsiff in I.A.No.474 of 2011 in the above suit. The application was filed by the defendants in the suit (respondents herein) under Order XI Rule 14 CPC. The suit is one for prohibitory injunction against the defendants from entering and causing damages to the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff is a Society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955.

2. Brief facts, born out from Ext.P1 plaint, are the following. Petitioners claimed to be the President and Secretary of the plaintiff society. Objects of the society have been detailed in paragraph one of Ext.P.1. Plaintiff purchased properties admeasuring 50 cents. President and Secretary of the plaintiff society are in possession and management of the properties. The property is described in plaint ‘A’ schedule. Respondents in the original petition have no manner of right in Ext.P1 schedule properties On 26-11-2011 they attempted to trespass into the property by causing damage to the boundary wall and improvements therein. Hence the suit was filed.

3. Before filing a written statement in the suit, the defendants approached the trial court with the above mentioned interlocutory application for compelling the petitioners to produce minutes of a meeting held on 02-11-2011, where under the petitioners claimed right to hold the office. It is pertinent to note that the respondents in their affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application vaguely contended that they are the persons entitled to manage the society. Nonetheless, the society is not functioning for some time. Petitioners got possession of documents pertaining to the society under dubious circumstances and they are likely to tamper with them. Hence the document should be produced before the court.

4. Learned Munsiff considered the rival contentions and allowed the application. Reasoning adopted by him is that the petitioners will not suffer prejudice or loss or hardship if the document is ordered to be produced.

5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reasoning of the learned Munsiff in allowing the petition is not justifiable in law. According to him, the attempt of the respondents is to make a roving inquiry into matters unconnected with the questions in the suit.

6. It will be useful to extract Order XI Rule 14 CPC for clarity:

“14. Production of documents. – It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.”

On a plain reading of the above provision, following aspects are discernible. Power of the court to invoke the above provision is discretionary. It is subject to the following conditions being satisfied, viz; (i) the documents, production of which is sought for, must be in the possession or power of the party against whom the direction is sought (ii) the documents must relate to any matter in question in such suit and (iii) direction can be given only to a party to the suit and not to a third party. It also gives discretion to the court to deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just. It is indubitable that the court is having power to direct production of documents under the said provisions at any time during the pendency of the suit. An order for production of documents under this rule is different from an order for discovery under Rule 12 or for inspection under Rule 18.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that ev