M.M.Sundresh. J.

In view of the commonality of the issues involved in all these appeals, they are disposed of by way of a common judgment.

2. The appellants, being the plaintiffs, have filed suits in C.S.Nos.862 to 870 of 1998 seeking recovery of money based upon the dishonour of the cheques said to have been issued by the respondents.

3. In the suits filed in the year 1998, the appellants have filed number of documents including day book, ledger and balance sheet qua the relevant entries and they were heard in part. At that point of time, the respondents/defendants filed applications in A.Nos.4376 to 4384 in C.S.No.862 to 870 of 1998 seeking a direction from the Court to issue subpoena to Mr.A.Mahesh, B.Com., FCA., Chartered Accountant of the appellants to appear before the Court and depose. The said applications were filed on the premise that there are various discrepancies between the entries made and the deposition of the appellants/plaintiffs, apart from the very veracity of the audited balance sheets themselves are in doubt. Thus, it was stated that in order to bring out the truth, the Auditor, who had prepared the balance sheets, would have to be examined. It was opposed by the appellants stating that the suits, having been filed on the basis of cheque discounting form, dishonoured cheques and the acknowledgement of the debt issued by the respondents/defendants, there is no necessity to allow the applications. The day book, ledger and audited balance sheet were filed merely to support the claim of the appellants and therefore, they are not the foundation for the cases.

The learned single Judge, allowed the applications holding that the Auditor, having been not examined by the appellants, the respondents are at liberty to summon him qua the entries made in his report and other documents prepared by him. Reliance has been made on Order 16 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this regard. Accordingly, it was held that the evidence has to be let in by examining the Auditor of the appellants by both sides. A further observation has been made stating that in the event of the appellants not examining their Auditor, he could be examined as a witness on the side of the respondents or as a Court witness. Challenging the above said order passed, the present original side appeals have been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the applications lack bona fides. They have been filed just to prevent the trial from proceeding further. The fulcrum of the appellants' case is based upon the cheques issued by the respondents/defendants, which factum is supported through the cheque discounting form, dishonoured cheques and the acknowledgement of the debt. There is no necessity to call the appellants' Auditor. The respondents cannot collect evidence by seeking to summon the appellants' party. The Auditor has done his professional job. Order XVI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for such a scenario. It is the appellants, who have to prove their case. Therefore, the appellants will have to be allowed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there are discrepancies in the records produced by the appellants. The discrepancies are also between the statement made by the appellants and the documents filed by them. In order to find the truth, the applications have been filed. Order XVI Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code read with Order XVI Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules provide for such a contingency. The order has been passed in order to find the truth. Therefore, no interference is required.

7. The suits have been filed by the appellants for recovery of money in pursuant to the cheques alleged to have been executed by the respondents having been dishonoured. The appellants filed documents in the respective suits in support of their case. The suits have also reached the stage of trial, which was going on. At that point of time, the respondents have file