JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - The Defendant in Money Suit No. 3 of 1984 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sundargarh is the Petitioner in the above-mentioned cases. The aforesaid suit was filed against him by the opp. party i.e. the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. through its District Manager, Sundargarh for realisation of Rs. 6,40,370.89 paise together with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The Defendant filed his written statement on 18-12-1984 and at the same time prayed for a direction to the Plaintiff to produce some documents which were in the custody of the Plaintiff. It was stated that a steel almirah which has seized by the A.C.S.O., Rourkela from the business premises of the Defendant contained all relevant records concerning his business which are necessary for reference in the suit and the said almirah with the contents thereof are at present in the office of the Plaintiff. It was stated that the written statement requires further elaboration after inspection of those documents. In that application five documents were specified in paragraph 8 of the petition though the prayer was to direct production of all the documents contained in the steel almirah for inspection by the Defendant. The said application was opposed to by the Plaintiff on the ground that there are several types of articles in the said almirah, a complete list of which was appended to the objection. Unless the Defendant specifies as to what documents he wants, there should be no order for inspection or for production of any document. By the impugned order the learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties has rejected the said application mainly on 3 grounds, namely, (i) that the petition under, Section 30, CPC does not give the particulars of the documents which are required to be produced by the Plaintiff; (ii) that a list of documents on which the Defendant relies having not been given in the written statement the prayer for production and inspection of the documents by the Defendant is not tenable; (iii) that in the absence of the aforesaid details the Court would not be able to find the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced and inspected. 2. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has urged that there was a search in the business premises of the Defendant-Petitioner on 23-10-1982 in the presence of the Executive Magistrate and the Civil Supplies Officer. Sundargarh and the A. C. S. O., Rourkela, by order of the Executive Magistrate seized many articles in the business premises as well as the steel almirah containing various papers, files and registers. The learned Counsel has made a grievance that this being a suit for realisation of money on the basis of the transactions which the Defendant made with the Plaintiff as a storage agent his defence as well as the relevant facts necessary to be proved in the suit would be mainly the books of account maintained by the Defendant in respect of the transactions, all of which had been seized along with steel almirah on 23-10-1982. This being a matter of detailed accounting, the learned Counsel has submitted that it was impossible to give the particulars of the documents from memory and therefore, inspection of the documents inside the almirah was absolutely essential for the further progress of the suit. It has also been stated that for the very same reason list of the documents on which the Defendant relies could not be supplied along with the written statement in compliance with law. Mr. Panigrahi for the opposite party has invited my attention to the detailed list of articles appearing in the seizure list, copy of which had been annexed by him to his objection against the Defendant?s petition. He has urged that it is possible for the Defendant to point out the documents from the aforesaid list so that the relevancy thereof can be determined by the Court and if considered relevant the same can be directed to be produced. His further argument is that the documents were seized by the order of the Executive Magistrate, Sundargarh, in pursuance of which a criminal case u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was initiated in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Sundargarh and that case having already been disposed of it is up to the Defendant to apply for and take return of the documents which were seized and/or produced in that case. 3. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel for both parties at length, I am of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge has not applied her mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and has rejected the application without taking care to see as to the spirit of the law. Admittedly, the steel almirah containing various records files and documents in relation to the business transactions of the Defendant were seized on 23-10-1982 and the Defendant has no access to the said document from that date Some of those documents might have been necessary in the aforesaid criminal case u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, but since that case has been disposed of, the documents were now to be available for inspection and production in the suit. The Defendant in his application dated 18-12-1984 had given a list of five .documents for production and inspection. The Plaintiff in its objection did not take the plea that those documents were not available in the said steel almirah for? production. The only objection taken was that the Defendant should,specify after perusal of the list of documents, furnished along with the objection which were necessary in connection with this case. On the other hand, it was clearly stated in the said objection that the Plaintiff be directed to produce those documents which are relevant to the case and after inspection the same be kept under lock and key or returned to the Plaintiff. In the circumstances, the learned Subordinate Judge should ha e at least considered the relevancy of those documents specified in the petition dated 18-12-1986. and if considered relevant, he should have directed to produce the same. 4. The other objection taken was that the Defendant has not filed the list of documents along with the written statement as provided under law stands explained by the admitted facts of the case. As already stated, the documents were seized from the custody of the Defendants on 23-10-1982. The suit was filed on 3-3-1984, i.e., about one and half years after the seizure. The plaint contains an extract of accounts on the basis of which the suit claim has been made out. As already stated, the documents were seized from the custody of the Defendants on 23-10-1982. The suit was filed on 3-3-1984, i.e., about one and half years after the seizure. The plaint contains an extract of accounts on the basis of which the suit claim has been made out. The genuineness or the legality of the suit claim can be challenged only after reference to the Books of Account maintained by the Defendant which according to him had been kept in the steel almirah and were seized on 23.10.1982. In the absence of the documents, it was, therefore, impossible for the Defendant either to give a list of documents which he required for inspection or to file a list of documents along with the written statement. It has been stated that it is only after the filing of the objection, a list of all the documents seized were made available to the Defendant. However acquainted the Defendant might be with the documents that were seized it may not be possible for him to specify the documents which are connected with the suit transactions or to satisfy the Court as to the relevancy thereof, without inspecting the documents, from the mere list supplied by the Plaintiff. Therefore, it should have been appropriate for the learned trial Court to permit inspection of the documents and if the inspection was not possible or convenient, in the premises of the Plaintiff to direct the almirah containing the documents to be produced before the Court for inspection. It is of Course lawful for the Court to restrict the admission of the documen ts in evidence unless they are found to be relevant and necessary for the purpose of the suit, It is up to the Defendant to seek permission of the appropriate Court to take return of the documents seized from him if they are done with and the appropriate Court may pass necessary orders in that behalf in accordance with law, if moved. All the same, the learned Subordinate Judge, with whom the suit is pending, is also entitled to call for or cause production of any documents from the custody of any person, if the same are necessary for the purpose of the suit. 5. All the same, the learned Subordinate Judge, with whom the suit is pending, is also entitled to call for or cause production of any documents from the custody of any person, if the same are necessary for the purpose of the suit. 5. In view of the discussions made above I would allow this revision, set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Subordinate Judge to reconsider the application dated 18-12-1986 and pass appropriate orders for further progress of the suit. In case inspection is permitted by the Court, proper steps should be taken against any scope for tampering with documents papers and records produced for inspection. After inspection the records must be kept under seal of the Court in proper custody. This disposes of the Civil Revision. 6. The Petitioner bad filed M.J.C. No. 11 of 1986 praying for transfer of the suit (i.e. M. S. No. 3 of 1984) from the file of Subordinate Judge, Sundargarh, to the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Rourkela, for the reasons that the Criminal Case No. 2 C. C. No. 7 of 1983 was then pending in the Court of Special Judge, Rourkela. The said M.J.C. has now become infructuous in as much as the Criminal Case has already been disposed of, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The M.J.C. is accordingly disposed of. No costs.