The court should be cautious in passing orders for production of documents, as serious consequences may follow if the order is not complied with.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The plaintiff/respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14, CPC seeking permission to produce about 25 documents. The trial Court after considering the document allowed the said application and permitted the plaintiff to produce the documents in evidence. The plaintiff filed another application under Order 7 Rule 14(2)(3), CPC seeking direction against the petitioner for production of certain documents mentioned in the application. The trial Court allowed the said application and directed the petitioner to produce the documents referred in the application.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved against both these orders.

4. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the documents which are sought to be produced by the plaintiff and for which permission was granted by trial Court are concocted documents. The plaintiff has fabricated these documents, therefore, the trial Court should not have permitted the plaintiff to produce these documents at such a belated stage.

5. After going through the facts mentioned in the writ petition as well as the reasons given in the impugned order, it is clear that the trial Court, after carefully examining the documents and considering all aspects of the matter, acted within its jurisdiction and permitted the plaintiff to produce the documents in evidence, though filed late. There is no error of jurisdiction or even error of law so far as the impugned order to the extent of allowing in application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, filed by the plaintiff for taking the documents on record is concerned.

6. Further, the contention of the petitioner that the documents are forged or concocted one are the questions which can be well decided by the trial Court after the evidence of both the parties and at the time of final decision of the suit because these questions can be decided only after permitting both the parties to prove or disprove these documents.

7. In the impugned order itself , the trial Court has allowed the plaintiff s application dated 24.08.2004 and directed the petitioner/defendant to produce the documents mentioned in the plaintiff s application.

8. By this application, the plaintiff sought production of documents namely, Cash Books, Ledgers,

O.T. Commission Receipt Books, Dak Dispatch Receipts, Form No. 24, T.D.S. Record, Form No. 16, Correspondence File and Cash vouchers. The defendant in his reply to the said application very specifically stated that the plaintiff was working as CMO in the defendants hospital and all the documents which are required by the plaintiff are of the period when he was working on the post of CMO. It is also stated that the plaintiff was in fact Incharge of the hospital and he was responsible for all the works of the hospital. In addition to above, the defendant very specifically stated that all the records were in power and possession of the plaintiff himself and just after removal of the plaintiff , the hospital went in heavy losses, therefore, the hospital was closed. The defendant further very categorically said that the defendant used to live at Calcutta and neither he has any knowledge about the said record nor the record is in possession of the defendant.

9. It appears from the impugned order that the trial Court did not consider any of the facts mentioned in the reply filed by the petitioner/defendant and straightway observed that the documents are relevant, therefore, the defendant should produce them.

10. Production of document can be ordered under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 CPC. As per Rule 12, any party may apply to the Court for an order directing any other party to any suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power relating to any matter in question therein. Proviso to Rule 12 provides that the discovery shall not be ordered when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly