The interpretation of Order 11, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing the relevance of documents to the matter in controversy, and the allowance of discovery based on the plaintiffs' consistent assertions.

N. K. DAS, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS are petitioners against an order rejecting their petition filed under order 11, Rule 12 of the Civil P. C. Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and not to come over their land or change the status quo thereof. The dispute relates to a portion of a plot belonging to the Jagannath Road Fund Trust. It is contended by the plaintiffs in the plaint that their father was a lessee in respect of the property in question and had erected a house thereon. After expiry of the lease period, at the instance of the Jagannath Road Fund, demand was made for depositing money for renewal of the lease and money was accordingly deposited. Though the formal lease deed has not yet been executed, the plaintiffs have been in possession of the land with the present structures standing thereon. During the period of Emergency, all of a sudden some officers of the State Government and of the Municipality along with a a police force came with heavy machineries on 30-6-1975 and without any prior notice they demolished the permanent construction standing on the land of the plaintiffs in spite of protest and the occupants were threatened to be detained under the maintenance of Internal Security Act and the Defence of India Rules. It has been averred in para 10 of the plaint that similar other constructions in the locality were also pulled down by bulldozers and other heavy machineries creating a panic in the minds of the public, in particular the inhabitants of the locality, so much so that none ventured to seek redress against such demolition. The demolition work was carried on rapidly and promptly and there was hardly any time for the public to seek redress against demolition. After demolition was complete in the locality, several writ applications were filed in the High Court challenging the action of the authorities. Plaintiff No. 1 also filed o. J. C. No. 1528 of 1975 in the High Court apprehending further demolition and order of injunction was issued' by the High Court restraining the authorities from carrying on further demolition or interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. In the counter-affidavits to the writ application, a false plea was taken that the demolition was made under the provisions of the Orissa prevention of Land Encroachment Act, but as a matter of fact no proceeding was started against the plaintiffs and in fact records were manufactured, fabricated and forged to cover-up the high-handed actions. It is alleged that all the manipulations and fabrications of papers were done for such demolition. The plaintiffs are in possession of the property in question and there is further threatening for their dispossession and, as such, the present suit has been filed. A sketch-map has been appended to the plaint to show the residential area of the plaintiffs and the land for which the suit has been filed. In para 14 of the written statement of the State Government, it has been averred that encroachment case under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act was filed against the plaintiffs and personal contact and proclamation through loudspeaker were made before actual eviction, proceedings were started against the plaintiffs and orders we're passed in accordance with law with the knowledge of the plaintiffs. In para 15, it is only stated that the allegations in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the plaint are not admitted and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. A petition for ad interim injunction was filed by the plaintiffs and the pre-sent matter arises out of that injunction matter which has been registered as Misc. Case No. 28 of 1978.

( 2 ) IN that proceeding, it appears from Order No. 17 dated 28-4-78 of the court below that the plaintiffs wanted to cross-examine the persons who have sworn affidavits on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 5 and 6. Counsel for opposite party no. 6 agreed to file the documents in