R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision Application is directed against the order refusing discovery of documents under O. 11 R. 12 C. P. C. The learned City Civil Judge by his order dt. 12/10/1982 refused to order discovery as prayed for The learned Judge has mainly refused the discovery on the three-line-application on the ground that the applicant does not state how the documents sought to be discovered are relating to any matters in question in the suit and how the discovery is necessary and the court would not be in a position to know whether the discovery is necessary or not unless the documents are particularised and in absence of particulars of the documents to be discovered the other side would not be in a position to raise possible objections. The learned Judge has referred to several kinds of possible objections such as the documents contents of which the other side is expected to know documents not relating to the subject-matter of the suit the document being privileged one the document relating to the cause of the party called upon to discover document not being in sole possession of that party; that the document being in possession of a party merely as an agent of a third party; that the document might incriminate the party etc. It clearly appears that the purpose of discovery. has not been appre- ciated. Under 0. 11 R. 12 C. P. C. a discovery is made in form No. V to Sch. C. of C. P. C. In the case of Rameshchandra Balabhai Desai v. Padmaben Kalidas Desai 4 G. L. R. 783 this court has dealt with the provision of discovery in O. 11 R. 12 C. P. C. and has observed as follows: ( 2 ) IT is to enable the defendant to know what documents relating to the matter in question in the suit are or have been in possession or power of the plaintiff that Order 11 Rule 12 has been enacted- A person making an application under Order 11 Rule 12 C. P. Code is not expected to state what documents he wants to be discovered because the very object of the discovery is to know the documents which are not with one of the parties. It is therefore wrong for the learned Judge to reject the application on the ground that no particulars are given of the documents referred to. ( 3 ) IT is thus clear that the discovery could not be refused on the ground that the person making the application has not stated what documents he wants to discover. In the present case the trial Court was clearly in error in rejecting the application on the ground that no particulars are given of the documents to be discovered and the learned trial Judge has not held that the discovery is not necessary. The learned trial Judge felt that it is not possible to decide about the necessity of discovery of the documents unless particulars are given. In such type of discovery it is strictly not necessary to give particulars and even it would not be possible. In that case the court also held that such error is a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction and liable to be referred with under sec. 115 C. P. C. ( 4 ) IN the case of M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur A. I. R. 1972 S. C. 2379 in Para 5 page 2382 the Supreme Court has also dealt with the provi- sions of 0. 11 R. 12 C. P. C. The Supreme Court raised the question that unless the party seeking discovery knows what are the documents in the possession or custody of the opposite party which would throw light upon the question in controversy how is it possible for him to ask for discovery of specific documents ? After quoting the provision in 0. 11 R. 12 the Supreme Court held that particulars of the documents referred would not be necessary at the stage of asking for discovery of the documents. The Supreme Court also dealt with the question of objections to production of the documents on different grounds and the court held in Para 6 that that would be reached only after discovery is made. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the opponent referred to a judgment of Punjab High Court in the case of Lajpat Rai v. Tej Bhan and Others A. I. R 1957 Punjab 14. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the opponent referred to a judgment of Punjab High Court in the case of Lajpat Rai v. Tej Bhan and Others A. I. R 1957 Punjab 14. In that case the party had objected to the dis- covery till the decision of a particular issue and that was rejected by the trial Court and the Punjab High Court held that this was not a case in which the Court should have allowed inspection of the partner ship books before the trial had begun and before the plaintiff had made out a case that the inspection was necessary for the purpose of fair disposal of the case and for saving litigation expenses. In the present case no such objection has been raised that discovery is sought at the premature stage or that it is unnecessary at this stage. ( 6 ) IN the result the Revision Application succeeds and the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application for production of documents is granted. The plaintiff also is directed to make discovery of documents in form No. V. The learned Counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff agrees to this. Therefore it is directed that the plaintiff-applicant and opponent No. 3 Shobraj Tharyamal Dalwani are directed to file affidavits of documents in form No. V to Sch. C of C. P. C Since the names of other defendants are deleted in the present Revision Application no order is passed in respect of them. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. Interim stay vacated. Rule made absolute. .