J U D G M E N T

The petitioner/1^st defendant in CS No.5 of 2022 on the files of the Commercial Court (Additional Sub Court – III), Kozhikode has filed this original petition challenging Exts.P9 and P10 orders.

2. The suit is for realisation of money. The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent/2^nd defendant filed Exts.P3 and P4 written statements in the suit. The 1^st respondent/plaintiff filed Ext.P6 replication statement to Exts.P3 and P4 written statements along with Ext.P7 application to receive the replication statement. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent filed Ext.P8 application seeking a direction to the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent to produce certain documents stated to be in their possession. The trial court, on 18.03.2025 allowed Exts.P7 and P8 applications by Exts.P9 and P10 orders without giving an opportunity to file an objection.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent. Though the service of notice to the 2^nd respondent is complete, there is no appearance for him.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that Exts.P9 and P10 orders were passed without giving him an opportunity to file objection to Exts.P7 and P8.

5. The lear