The Court has the discretion to allow or refuse discovery and inspection of documents, and this discretion must be exercised judicially and not as a matter of routine.

Bishan Narain, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 115, Civil P. C., has been filed fay the defendants in a suit which is pending in the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi. The plaintiff and the five defendants entered into a partnership on certain terras on 17-10-1950. The business of partnership was to be that of builders and contractors.

The partnership took three contracts for execution from the Government before 31-8-1952 On this date, namely, 31-8-1952 the plaintiff Tej Bhan executed an agreement retiring from the partnership and according to this document he went through the accounts and received about Rs. 700/- in final settlement of the same.

The plaintiff filed the present suit on 28-1-1954 seeking a declaration that the document of 31-8-1952 is void as brought about by the defendants by undue influence, pressure and coercion and sought its cancellation; He also sought relief of declaration that the credit and debit items and payment of Rs. 783/9/- mentioned in the document were neither owned nor received by him as no accounts had been gone into between the parties on that day. This suit is contested by the defendants. On 25-11-1954 the trial Court framed the following issues:

"(1) Whether the agreement of retirement dated 31-8-52 was executed by the plaintiff under coercion and undue influence as alleged in the plaint? O.P.P.

(2) Whether no accounts were gone into by the parties at the time of the writing of the agreement Ex. P-l? O.P.P.

(3) Whether a sum of Rs. 23,0007- was not found due from the plaintiff and adjusted in the account as stated in Ex. P-l? O.P.P.

(4) Whether a sum of Rs. 783/9/- was not paid in cash to the plaintiff as stated in Ex. P-l? O.P.P.

(5) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit by his acts and conduct? O.P.P.

(6) Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs? If so to what amount? O.P.D.

(7) Relief."

Before any evidence was led in the case the plaintiff applied under Order 11, Rules 12 and 14, Civil P. C., for discovery and inspection of account-books of the partnership. The defendants contested this application but on 30-12-1954 the Court passed a short order reading:

"The defendant to discover the documents on oath on 13-1-54 (?) (13-1-55)."

On this date the defendants discovered the documents and made an application under Order 11, Rule 20, Civil P. C., requesting the Court that the inspection may be deferred till the decision on issue No. 1 which will decide the plaintiffs right to ask for rendition of partnership accounts. The plaintiff replied on 4-2-1955 and on that day the trial Court passed the order reading:

"The discovery and production of the account-books relating to the partnership is material for the proof of issues Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore the application of the defendants is dismissed because the question of discovery and production of the account-books of the firm cannot be deferred till issue No. 1 is decided. But the plaintiff shall give detailed particulars of the books of accounts and the documents sought to be produced by the defendants."

and it is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

2 Now, it cannot be, doubted that in certain circumstances it may be necessary to afford facilities to a party to the suit to prove his case or to demolish his opponents case by allowing him to have access to the documents in the possession or in the power of the opponent and the provisions of Order 11, Rr. 12 to 20, have been enacted to give the necessary power to Courts. A party is entitled to claim inspection of documents mentioned in the opponents pleadings (vide Order 11, Rule 15), but if the opponent refuses to comply With this notice then the Court may fix time and place for inspection of the same provided it is of the opinion that the order is necessary for fair disposal of the suit for saving costs of litigation (vide Order 11, Rule 18 (2)). As for the documents that are not mentioned in the pleadings a par