Mohammad Rafiq, J.

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., which is defendant in the suit filed by the respondent-Ram Bagh Palace Hotel Private Ltd. for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages against it. The premise on which the eviction is sought is personal necessity under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. The plaintiff-respondent filed application under Order 11, Rule 12, 14 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 18.8.2010 for discovery/production of certain documents from the defendant-petitioner. The learned trial court by order dated 1.2.2011 allowed the said application. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in writ petition bearing no. 4210/11 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 29.1.2013 and this Court by setting aside the aforesaid order, remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the application afresh in accordance with law.

2. According to the petitioner, the arguments on the aforesaid application were partly heard on 26.2.2013 and thereafter the matter was posted for further arguments. However, in the meanwhile the plaintiff-respondent filed another application under Order 11, Rule 14 CPC on 10.5.2013. The defendant-petitioner filed reply to that application on 21.5.2013. However, the plaintiff-respondent later withdrew the aforesaid application dated 10.5.2013 on 11.11.2013. Later, however, he filed yet another application under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC on the same date.

3. According to petitioner, this last application under Order 11, Rule 12 filed on 11.11.2013 CPC was filed for discovery of as many as 10 documents referred to in para 6 of the writ petition. The defendant-petitioner filed reply to the said application on 12.12.2013 denying the allegations of the plaintiff-respondent and alleging that the said application was not maintainable in view of pendency of earlier application on the same subject. However, the learned court below vide impugned order dated 27.01.2014 allowed the application and directed the defendant-petitioner to disclose the documents, which are in his possession and power on an affidavit. In response to the said order, the defendant-petitioner filed affidavit of the authorized signatory Mr. Harpreet Singh Tuteja, the Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation on 21.2.2014. The learned trial court by order dated 25.2.2014 directed the plaintiff-respondent to file counter affidavit in reply to the aforesaid affidavit filed by the petitioner. The defendant-petitioner then filed an application on 4.3.2014 stating therein that provisions of Order 11, Rule 12 and 13 CPC do not provide for a direction to the opposite party to file counter affidavit in rebuttal to the affidavit filed under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC. In the meantime, the counter affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent was already filed and, therefore, in reply filed by them, they have pleaded that the application of the defendant-petitioner has become in fructuous. It is this application dated 4.3.2014, which has been rejected by the trial court vide impugned order dated 9.10.2014.

4. Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court has erred in law in not permitting the plaintiff-respondent to file the affidavit in rebuttal/response to the affidavit which the defendant-petitioner filed on 21.2.2014 as per the order of the Court dated 27.1.2014. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court has further committed illegality in the impugned order dated 9.10.2014 by directing the defendant-petitioner to produce the documents in compliance of the order dated 1.2.2011, whereas the said order has already been set aside by this Court in its earlier writ petition vide judgment dated 29.1.2013. Learned counsel referring to the provisions of Order 11, Rule 12 CPC argued that if a party apply to the Court for directing any other par