S.K. Seth, J.- l. This plaintiff is the mother of Shyam Sunder Wadhwani who died on 18-6-1981. The defendant No.1 is the widow of Shyam Sunder Wadhwani. The defendant No.2 is the daughter, and the defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of Sunder Wadhwani.

2. It was claimed by the plaintiff that after the death of her son Shyam Sunder Wadhwani she and the defendants inherited the immovable and moveable properties left behind by him. It was accordingly that she filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants in respect of the properties said to have been left behind by Shyam Sunder Wadhwani.

3. In the written-statement filed on behalf of the defendant, it was not denied that the plaintiff had a right to inherit the properties, if any left behind by Shyam Sunder Wadhwani as a co-heir along with them. But, then, it was denied by them that Shyam Sunder Wadhwani left behind any immovable or moveable properties described by the plaintiff in her plaint. As far as the immovable properties were concerned, it was alleged by them that the plot of land situated in Kasturba Nagar locality in the city of Bhopal was acquired by the defendant No.1 on lease from the State Bank of India Officers Co-operative Housing Society by a registered lease deed dated 22-2-1983 in her own name and she builta house thereon with her own money. With regard to the Khandar plot situated in Matawali Gali locality in the city of Bhopal, it was claimed by them that it was wrong to say that Shyam Sunder Wadhwani had purchased the same Benami in the name of defendant No.1 vide registered sale-deed dated 25-9-1978. It was submitted by them that it was the defendant No.1 who had purchased the said plot vide the said sale-deed from her own savings and sold it later on for a sum of Rs.18,000/- to defendant No.5 Syed Amjad Ali on 30-9-1985.

4. As far as the moveable properties were concerned, it was denied by the defendants that Shyam Sunder Wadhwani left behind any bank deposits or cash money. With regard to the insurance policies, it was submitted by them that the same had been obtained by the deceased for the benefit of the defendants i.e. his wife and children declaring the defendant No.1 as the nominee to receive payments thereunder. It was admitted by them that after the death of Shyam Sunder Wadhwani the Life Insurance Corporation paid the amounts covered by the insurance policies to the defendant No.1. It was claimed that under section 6 of the Married Womens' Property Act, 1974, the insurance money belonged to the defendant No.1 absolutely and the money did not form part of the estate left behind by the deceased. With regard to the provident fund and gratuity amounts lying in the name of the deceased, there was a similar claim made to the effect that the said amounts did not form part of the estate of the deceased for the reason that the defendant No.1 had been declared as the nominee under the rules by the deceased to receive the payments after his death. It was admitted that the employers of the deceased had paid the above said amounts to the defendant No.1 for her benefit and that of defendants 2 to 4. It was alleged that the plaintiff had no share in the said amounts. With regard to the domestic articles like furniture, utensils, radio, etc., it was denied by them that the deceased left behind any such articles with them.

5. Now, before the evidence in the case could commence, the plaintiff made an application to the Court on 23-10-1986 under order 11, rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure for directing the defendants 1 to 4 to make discovery on oath of the documents which were in their possession or power relating to the subject-matter of the suit. Some of the documents in respect of which the discovery was sought by the plaintiff were specifically mentioned in the application. The application was opposed by the defendants 1 to 4. The Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application vide its order dated 1-1-1987. It is being ag