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 C