JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 12.2.92 passed by the learned Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in suit No. 1755/88, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 C.P.C.
2. A suit has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on 7.12.88 claiming a declaration that the order of termination of his service dated, 6.8.86 is illegal. The petitioner has stated that the order of termination of his service passed on 6.8.88 is unlawful, because, this order has been made in total disregard of the principles of natural justice. He has not been given opportunity of hearing and he has been condemned unheard.
3. On 20.9.91, the plaintiff petitioner filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 C.P.C. with the prayer that the order of termination of his service and the remarks made in the way-bill, which are in possession of the defendant- nonpetitioner may be directed to be produed before the Court. He has asserted that these documents are relevant to the subject matter of dispute and are necessary for the fair disposal of the suit.
4. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Munsiff No. 2 Jaipur City, Jaipur, has dismissed the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner.
5. The petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the learned trial court is patently erroneous in law. The learned Munsiff has committed a material irregularity in exercise of her jurisdiction of deciding the application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12. This irregularity has resulted in substatial failure of justice. The case of the petitioner is that the reason given by the learned Additional Munsiff for refusing to issue direction for production of the record is no reason in the eye of law.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Court has power to direct discovery of documents with the object of complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties. He argued that any document, which throws light on the case, is a document relevant to the matter in dispute and the proceedings, therefore, the direction of discovery of such document should be given. He has argued that the original documents, namely, the order of termination of service and the way-bill are with the non-petitioners. They are under an obligation to produce these documents in their possession.
7. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioners, on the other hand, argued that this revision petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He argued that the learned trail court had the discretion to direct or not to direct the discovery of the documents. Once the trail court has exercised its discretion, interference is called for by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. By making reference to serveral decisions of this Court, learned Counsel for the non-petitioners argued that no injustice is going to be caused to the petitioner on account of non-production of documents.
8. After having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission and having gone through the order dated, 12.2.92, passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, I am clearly of the opinion that the reason given by the learned Additional Munsiff for rejecting the application of the plaintiff-petitioner for discovery and production of the documents is no reason in the eye of law. The termination of the services of the petitioner is very much in issue before the trial court. The documents, the discovery and production of which has been sought by the plaintiff-petition, are clearly relevant to the subject-matter of dispute and production of these documents will facilitate a proper and fair controversy between the parties.
9. In Rajkishor Prasad v. State of Orissa , it has been held.
It is sufficient to for discovery, if the document would be relevant for the purpose of throwing light on the matter in controversy, Every document which will throw any light on the case is document relating to a matter is dispute, in the proceeding though it might not be admissible in evidence in other words a document might be admissble in evidence, yet it may contain information which may either directly or indirecly enable the party seeking discovery either to advance his case or damage the adversay’s case or which may lead to trial of enquiry which may have either or these two consequences.
10. The learned trial court has, in my opinion, committed serious irregularity in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12. The rejection of this application has serious adverse implication on the case of the petitioner. He will suffer grave injustic if these documents are not directed to be produced before the Court.
11. The revision petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The order dated 12.2.92 passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 is allowed. The non-petitioners are directed to produce the record for which prayer has been made in the application filed under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC. The trial court shall now proceed with the matter.
12. Parties are left to bear their own costs.