K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) AT the stage of admission, the respondents are notified. Accordingly, the first respondent has put in appearance through a counsel. As far a,s the 2nd respondent is concerned, it is stated that he has remained ex-parte in the trial Court. Therefore, the matter is heard on merits. ( 2 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 10-11-1980 passed by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge, belgaum, rejecting an application (I. A. No. 1) filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to direct defendant No. 1 to produce certain documents which are in its possession as mentioned in the application. ( 3 ) THE learned Judge has rejected the application on the grounds that the documents are not relevant; that the petitioner-plaintiff has no right to seek a direction to the defendants to produce the documents under Rule 14 of Or. XI CPC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' ). ( 4 ) THERE is no doubt that the learned civil Judge has not correctly read the provisions contained in Or. XI Rule 14 of the Code, which are as follows:"14. It shall be lawful for the court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto upon oath, of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the court shall think right; and the court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just. "from the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that it is open for the Court to make an order for the production of documents at any time during the pendency of the suit. No doubt, exercise of power under Rule 14 of Or. XI of the Code, is discretionary and is subject to two conditions being satisfied viz. , (1) The documents, the production of which is sought for, must be in the possession or power of the party against whom the direction is sought for; and (2) the documents must relate to the controversy involved in the suit. It need not be pointed out that the discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrartily. In the instant case, the learned civil Judge has not referred to the documents, the production of which is sought for by the petitioner. It need not be pointed out that the discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrartily. In the instant case, the learned civil Judge has not referred to the documents, the production of which is sought for by the petitioner. It is also not stated as to how the documents in question are not relevant to the controversy involved in the suit. It is nqt disputed by the first defendant first respondent that the documents in question are in its possession or custody. It is also not even stated by the first defendant that the said documents are not at all relevant to the matter in question in the suit. ( 5 ) THE suit of the petitioner-plaintiff is for recovery of a sum said to have been paid to the first respondent- in excess of the amount which he is required to pay towards chassis allotted to him. It is the first defendant who has delivered the chassis to the plaintiff on collecting the excess amount from the plaintiff sa per the case pleaded by him. In order to prove his claim, the plaintiff has sought for a direction to the first defendant to produce the following documents: 1 Stock Register of July 1979; 2 Delivery register of the Tata Mercides Chassis of July 1979: 3. Bank pass book containing the credit entries of the drafts sent by plaintiff to defendant No. 1 in July, 1979 maintained by defendant No. 1 in respect of chassis account. 4. Phone Bill in respect of Phone No. 20252 of Defendant No. 1 for the month of June and July 1979; and 5 Chassis bills received from defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1 for the months of June and July, 1979. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the averments made in the plaint and the defence putforth by the first defendant, it cannot be held that the documents in question do not relate to the controversy involved in the suit between the parties. The 1st defendant, as it has already been pointed out, has not denied the custody and possession of the documents in question. That being so, the learned Civil Judge ought to have allowed the application. Thus the application has been arbitrarily rejected. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, this Civil revision petition is allowed. The 1st defendant, as it has already been pointed out, has not denied the custody and possession of the documents in question. That being so, the learned Civil Judge ought to have allowed the application. Thus the application has been arbitrarily rejected. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, this Civil revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned II Additional Civil judge, in O. S. No. 211 of 1979 rejecting I. A. No. 1 is set aside and the application-I. A. No. 1 is allowed The trial Court is directed to direct the first respondent-first defendant to produce the documents mentioned in I. A No. 1. --- *** --- .