M.M. Kumar, J. - Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.3.202 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chandigarh allowing the application of the plaintiff-respondent directing the defendant-petitioner to produce the original registration certificate of scooter make Priya No. HYQ-5986, Car No. HR-07-5986 and also cash book, ledger book and other accounts relating to the period w.e.f. 28.7.1998 to 21.6.1999. The defendant-petitioner has filed this revision petition invoking the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code).

2. In order to put the whole controversy in its proper perspective and to focus on the legal issues involved, necessary facts may first be noticed. Plaintiff-respondent field Civil Suit No. 139 darted 2.12.1999 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 21,60,000/-. The suit has been filed under Order 36 of the Code on the basis of family settlements dated 2.8.1998 and 21-23.8.1999 and cheque No. 786212 dated 31.7.1999. Defendant-petitioner was granted leave to contest on 5.1.2000 by the Civil Judge on the condition of furnishing of indemnity bonds to the tune of Rs. 20 lac with one surety. The case of the plaintiff-respondent set up in the plaint is that family settlement has been arrived at between the parties who are kith and kin and who had joint business. Plaintiff-respondent filed an application on 4.3.2002 seeking direction to the defendant-petitioner for production of various documents and record after the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant-petitioner. The Civil Judge allowed the application on the ground that various documents and record are relevant for proper adjudication of the issues. The operative part of the order recorded by the Civil Judge on 30.3.2002 reads as under :-

"After considering the rival submissions made by Ld. Counsel for both the parties I find that the plaintiff has brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 21,60,000/- with interest on the basis of some agreement executed between the parties on 21.06.99 vide which all the properties including petrol pump, kerosene oil Pump, landed property, residential property and vehicles were distributed amongst the parties so the documents pertaining to the period prior to the execution of agreement are certainly relevant for the purpose of cross-examining the defendant and will help in the proper adjudication of the case. Accordingly, the cash book, ledger book and account books are also relevant for the proper adjudication of the case which certainly pertain to the period prior to execution of agreement. Hence the application filed by the plaintiff is allowed and the documents are allowed to be produced by the defendant at the time of examination of the witness of defendant."

3. Mr. Raman Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioner has argued that by allowing the application, the Civil Judge has opened up a pandoras box for fishing enquiry which may lead to disastrous results for the defendant-petitioner because if any other irregularity is found in the accounts, the defendant-petitioner would be out to unnecessary harassment. He has argued that in such like situation, the Civil Judge could not have directed the production of account books and other documents. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Punj Star Industries (P) Ltd. v. Atna Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 628 and argued that when in that case such an application was filed, it was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff-company was trying to make a fishing and roving enquiry. Another submission made by the learned counsel is that the documents which have been ordered to be produced by the Civil Judge do not relate to any matter in question within the meaning of Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code. Therefore, he has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order.

4. Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned counsel for the pl