Judgment :- 1. This revision is by the plaintiff and is directed against an order of the court below refusing to most extent his petition under 0.11, R.14,15 and 18. 2. The plaintiff and the defendant were equal partners in the Timber Supply Co. and Baliapatam Saw Mills, Pappinisseri which they had started in November 1941. Under the agreement of partnership the management was to be carried on jointly but by mutual consent the defendant was the active partner. Subsequently under dissolution deed dated 11-11-1953 executed between them, they dissolved the Firm as and from 5-10-1953. The dissolution was on the basis that the net assets and liabilities of the firm balanced each other and the defendant took it over as a going concern on payment of a sum of Rs. 22, 500/- to the plaintiff, as the estimated value of the good will. The assessment of the firm for the four years preceding the dissolution and commencing 1950-51 was finalised by the Incometax Inspector on 5-12-1954 with the result that the company stood surcharged to the extent of Rs. 72,593-8-0, because the Company's accounts "did not reveal the full profits and also suffered from various defects". On receipt of this order of the Income Tax Officer on 8-12-1954 the plaintiff suspected foul play by the defendant in connection with the settlement of accounts at time of the dissolution and issued notice accordingly to the defendant calling for fresh settlement. This suit was filed thereafter on 18-11-1955 for re-opening the accounts on ground of fraud depending mainly on the findings entered by the Income tax Officer in his order of assessment and for decree for accounts through court. The defendant resisted the suit on the basis that the plaintiff's complaints were vague and general and did not disclose any cause of action and the findings of the Income-tax Officer on which the plaintiff relied, had themselves lost all force by virtue of the relevant appellate orders in the matter. 3. On the case coming on for evidence, the plaintiff made the present application under 0.11, R.14,15 and 18 for production of all books of accounts of the company kept from its very start for purpose of inspection by the plaintiff, so as to enable the plaintiff to establish the fraud committed by the defendant. 3. On the case coming on for evidence, the plaintiff made the present application under 0.11, R.14,15 and 18 for production of all books of accounts of the company kept from its very start for purpose of inspection by the plaintiff, so as to enable the plaintiff to establish the fraud committed by the defendant. The affidavit of the plaintiff in support listed the defendant's fraudulent manipulation of the accounts in the same manner as in the plaint, and affirmed that the plaintiff had never checked and inspected the accounts at any time. The defendant filed detailed counter-affidavit questioning the maintainability of the petition. The court below has now by elaborate order found that the plaintiff's allegation as to fraud was wanting in particulars and he was not entitled to any order until he disclosed the fraud in all its details by way of amendment of plaint but it nevertheless directed the production by the defendant of the accounts into court so as to avoid future tampering therewith. The short question is whether this order is in any way incorrect. 4. Now a party is entitled to re-open an account which has been settled if he is able to show that there has been a mutual mistake or fraud. But specific allegations of the fraud or mistake are necessary before the reopening will be allowed. He must show some particular items to the court and also allege fraud. If it is a case of errors, particular errors must be stated and proved. As stated in Mulla's C.P.C., 12th Edn. p.580: "Where fraud is charged against the defendant, it is an acknowledged rule of pleading that the plaintiff must set forth the particulars of the fraud which he alleges. It is not enough to use such general words as "fraud" "deceit" or "machinations". "General allegations, however strong may be the words in which they are stated are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice". Lindley on Partnership, 11th Edn. at page 624 states the law as to reopening settled accounts as follows: "A settled account may be impeached either wholly or in part on the ground of fraud or mistake. Lindley on Partnership, 11th Edn. at page 624 states the law as to reopening settled accounts as follows: "A settled account may be impeached either wholly or in part on the ground of fraud or mistake. If there is fraud, or if any mistake affects the whole account, the whole will be opened, and a new account will be directed to be taken, with out reference to that which has been stated; but if there be no fraud, and if no mistake affecting the whole account can be shown, but the correctness of some of the items in it is, nevertheless disputed, the account already stated will not be treated as non-existing, but will be acted upon as correct, save so far as the party dissatisfied with any items can show it to be erroneous. In a case of fraud, an account will be opened in toto, even after the lapse of a considerable time; but if no fraud is proved, an account which has been long settled will not be opened in toto; the utmost which the court will then do will be to give leave to surcharge and falsify; and there are cases in which, in consequence of lapse of time; the court will do no more than itself rectify particular items, instead of giving leave to surcharge or falsify generally. Moreover, the mere fact that items are treated in an improper way, or are improperly omitted, is not of itself sufficient to induce the court to open a settled account for if the items in question were known to the parties, and there be no fraud or undue influence proved, the court will infer that the partners agreed to treat the items as they in fact did treat him". 5. On the question of production and inspection of documents there is some controversy as to whether an order for production under 0.11, R.14 C.P.C. can only follow an order as to affidavit of documents under O.11, R.12 C. P. C. In Baidvanath v. Bholanath Roy, A I. R.1923 Patna 337, it was held that there should first be an order for discovery made under R.12 before an order for production can be made. The contrary view is taken in Sri Niwas v. Election Tribunal, Lucknow, A. I. R.1955 All. 251. The contrary view is taken in Sri Niwas v. Election Tribunal, Lucknow, A. I. R.1955 All. 251. The question is not of much importance in this case because no objection was raised by the defendant on this score. There can however be no doubt that a party is entitled to say that no order for production should be passed so long as the opposite party has not established his cause of action. It was held accordingly in A.I.R. 1923 Patna 337 just cited that where a plaintiff in order to succeed in his claim to certain property had to get rid of a compromise decree to which he was a party, it is not open to him to compel the defendant to disclose the accounts relating to the properties involved. And similarly in K.V. Ramachari v. K.V. Krishnamachari, A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 846, the defendant was held entitled to object to the inspection of his accounts referred to in his pleadings and also produced by him in a court, by the plaintiff claiming to be a partner so long as he had not established that he was a partner. That is to say the mere production by one party does not give an indefeasible right of inspection to the other. 6. I have gone through the plaint and also the affidavit in support of the petition herein, and I am satisfied that the court below is on good ground when it says that the fraud relied on by the plaintiff is definitely wanting in particulars. Learned Advocate General appearing for the plaintiff took permission for it and filed fresh statement in this court as to the fraud. But that statement has not carried the matter one whit further. In fact all that the statement has attempted is to condense the allegations in shorter compass but leave them as general as before. I have therefore no materials before me for coming to the conclusion that the order of the court below is not justified. 7. Learned Advocate General wants me to make it clear that the present order may not stand against his client in any renewal of the prayer after necessary foundation has been laid There can certainly be no objection in this regard. 8. The revision fails. It is therefore rejected with costs. Dismissed.