JUDGMENT : K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - The Civil Revision Nos. 34, 40 and 46 of 1990 arise out of the common order dated 9-1-1990 passed in Original Suit No 48 of 1989 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack disposing of applications filed in the said suit. The said three applications are as follows: (A) A petition under Order 11, Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC filed by the petitioner for discovery and production of documents as per the list given in Annexure-X to the Civil Revision No. 39 of 1990 which is the same as Annexure-A to the petition u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act. (B) A petition under Order 16, Rule 5 read with Section 151, CPC calling for documents, the list of which is given in Annexure-Y of the Civil Revision No. 39 of 1990. (C) The third application was filed for analogous hearing of Original Suit No. 48 of 1989 with Original Suit No. 831 of 1988, filed by the petitioner in Civil Revision. No. 46 of 1990 namely Basanta Kumar Biswal. 2. The short facts relating to the suit in question are stated below : Dr. Harekrushna Mahatab died on 2-1-1987 leaving behind a Will in favour of his son Bhartruhari Mahatab, opp. party in all the revisions. By his Will he bequeathed all his properties wherever situate without specifically mentioning them in the Will. There was no specific reference to any particular item of the property in the Will. On his death the legatee namely Bhartruhari Mahatab filed an application u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate in his favour which was registered as Misc. Case No. 14/35 of 1987. Since there was objection to the probation of the Will, the Misc. Case was subsequently registered as Original Suit No. 48 of 1989 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack. Dolagovinda Pradhan, the petitioner No. 1 in Civil Revision No. 39 of 1990 and Civil Revision No. 40 of 1990 was one of the objectors to the grant of letter of administration in respect of one of the items of the property situated in Cuttack Town claiming that the same did not belong to the testator and was rejected by the Subordinate Judge by order dated 8-3- 1989 in Misc. Case No. 14/35 of 1987 against which order Dolagovinda Pradhan preferred a civil revision bearing No. 303 of 1989 in this Court The Civil Revision No 303 of 1989 was heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. C, Mohapatra and by his order dated 7-4-1989 reported in 68 (1989) C.L.T. 316 his Lordship held thus : "xx xx Judgment in a probate proceeding is a judgment in tern. Accordingly, any person who has appeared can see the proceeding. Seeing the proceeding would include raising objection and for that purpose cross-examining the witnesses also. He. can also examine witnesses. In this case, petitioner wanted to contest the grant of letters of administration in respect of one item of the property situated at Cuttack claiming that the same does not belong to the testator." His Lordship also held thus: "On payment of the costs, he shall be permitted to fife Ms objection whereupon, issues shall be settled and the same shall be disposed of as a suit." This Court also directed that the proceeding shall be concluded at an early date preferably by end of November, 1989. After conclusion of the civil revision in this Court, Issues were framed in Original Suit No. 48 of. 1989. One of the said Issues reads as follows : "was the properties in item No. IV of the 'A' schedule (immovable) the personal property of Dr. M. K. Mahatab at the lime of his, death or the same belonged to 'Prajatantra Prachar Samiti"? Because the matter was tried as a suit and this issue was framed along with other Issues, the petitioner felt it necessary to file 2. applications one under Order 11, Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151, CPC for discovery and production of documents and the another under Order If. Rule 5 read with Section 151, CPC for calling for the documents as per the list. Besides another application, as already stated, was filed for analogus hearing of Original Suit No. 48 of 1989 with Original Suit No. 831 of 1988. The OS No. 831/88 was filed by Basanta Kumar Biswal, the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 46 of 1990 against the opp. party_Bhartruhari Mahatab. Bhartruhari Mahatab is opp. party in all the three Civil Revisions. Besides another application, as already stated, was filed for analogus hearing of Original Suit No. 48 of 1989 with Original Suit No. 831 of 1988. The OS No. 831/88 was filed by Basanta Kumar Biswal, the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 46 of 1990 against the opp. party_Bhartruhari Mahatab. Bhartruhari Mahatab is opp. party in all the three Civil Revisions. The OS No. 831/ 88 was filed for a declaration that the properties described in the schedule which includes item No. IV of the list of immovable, properties attached to the probate proceeding and with a prayer for removal of opp. party from the trusteeship and for permanent injunction. 3. To the petition for discovery and production of documents, Bhartruhari Mahatab, the present opp. party had filed his objection stating that the said petition was not tenable under law and the document enlisted in item, Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the petition are not in his possession and control in his individual capacity and therefore, he need not be called upon in law to produce those documents. It is asserted that he had filed the application for probate of the Will in his personal and individual capacity fully unconnected with the Prajatantra Prachar Samiti. He, however, admitted that the documents mentioned in item Nos. 2 and 6 of the list were in his possession and he could produce those documents if he would be directed by the Court but he objected to the production of other documents as per the list since they are not otherwise relevant for adjudication or the matter in question. Because of this objection, the respondent in probate case namely the present petitioner Dolagovinda filed the second appli- cation under Order 16, Rule 5 read with Section 151, CPC calling for the documents as per the items Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 " from the General Manager, Prajatantra Prachar Samiti who is the custodian of the said documents. He also prayed for summoning the General Manager, Prajatantra Prachar Samiti directing him to produce and file the said documents and to prove the documents in Court. 4. The trial Court held that although both these two documents are not very much necessary for deciding a probate proceeding, but in view of the objection raised by the respondents that such property did not belong to Dr. 4. The trial Court held that although both these two documents are not very much necessary for deciding a probate proceeding, but in view of the objection raised by the respondents that such property did not belong to Dr. Harekrushna Mahatab and that the same belongs to Prajatantra Prachar Samiti and that the petitioner had wrongly included such property in the list of immovables for issue of letters of administration, those two documents namely item Nos. 2 and 6 would be relevant for proper adjudication of the issue between the parties and therefore, directed for production of those documents but refused to direct the production of rest of the documents which according to the Court were not relevant for proper adjudication of the Us so as to be called for from the appropriate authorities as stated by the respondents in their petition dated 8-1- !990. Accordingly the trial Court allowed the petition dated 3-1- 1990 filed under Order 11, Rules 12 and 14, C. P. C. partly and the prayer for calling for the other documents was rejected; 5. Regarding the third petition for analogous hearing of the Original Suit No. 48 of 1989 with Title Suit No. 831 of 1988, the trial Court rejected such prayer as according to the Court not only the nature and scope of the two suits were different but also the relief sought for in both the suits were quite different. Though all the three applications were disposed of by the same impugned order, since three different petitions were filed, the parties have preferred these 3 civil revisions in this Court separately. Since the matters in these three revisions are connected and arise out of the same suit, these have been heard together and a common order is passed. 6. It is no doubt true that when an application is made u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act, for grant of probate, the Court of Probate is only concerned with the question as to whether the document put forward as the last Will and the testament or the deceased testator was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution the testator had sound disposing mind It is not for the probate Court to determine particular bequest is good or bad as it is not within its purview of the brobate Court. These views are supported by a decision reported in Ishwardeo Narain Singh Vs. Sm. Kamta Devi and Others. The Supreme Court in that case had also taken into consideration Secs. 235 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act. Secs. 235 and 283(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act deal with citations in the case. According to Section 283(1)(c) of the Act, the District Judge or District Delegate has authority to issue citations, if he thinks proper, upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration. In the present case, as alleged, by the objector in the probate case, the legatee was claiming interest in a piece of property belonging to the Prajatantra Prachar Samiti showing it as part of the estate of the deceased. Whether the Court below was justified and right in law to consider such an application, has already been considered in a previous civil revision No. 303 of 1989 .disposed of by the order dated 7-4-1989. I am, therefore, not called upon to go into that question in these civil revisions. None of the parties has challenged the said finding of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court made in Civil Revision No. 303 of 1989 and pursuant to the said order, issues have been framed one of which has already been quoted in the body of this order. Now the question arises whether in view of the fact that the parties are in issue regarding the ownership of certain item of property belonged to the testator or not, the documents which are sought for to be produced before the trial Court for inspection, should have been allowed in law. Two of the issues in the O. S. No. 48 of 1989 are quoted below : "Issue No. 3. : Was the properties in item No. IV of the 'A' Schedule (immovable) the personal property of Dr. H. K. Mahatab at the time of his death or the same belonged to Prajatantra Prachar Samitf ?" Issue No. 4 :. Is the petitioner entitled to the grant of letters of administration in dispute of the properties described in Schedule 'A' of the petition ?" 7. H. K. Mahatab at the time of his death or the same belonged to Prajatantra Prachar Samitf ?" Issue No. 4 :. Is the petitioner entitled to the grant of letters of administration in dispute of the properties described in Schedule 'A' of the petition ?" 7. Order 16, Rule 7, CPC reads as follows : "Order 16, Rule 7- Any person present in Court may be required by the Court to give evidence or to produce any document then and there in his possession or power." While the Court giving direction for production of those documents during the pendency of the suit, he must be satisfied that : (A) the documents which are called for to be produced, are in power and possession of a party against whom the order is made. (B) Those documents relate to the matter in question in the suit. The documents must be such that they throw some light into the case and must be in possession of the party. But this power of directing the party to produce the documents is always subject to Secs. 130 and 131 of the Indian Evidence Act. 8. Secs. 130 and 131 of the Indian Evidence Act run thus : "Section 130 : Production of title-deeds of witness not a party : No witness who is not a party to a suit shall be compelled to produce his title deeds to any property, or any document in virtue of which he holds any property as pledgee or mortgagee, or any document the production of which might tend to crimnate him, unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking the production of such deeds or some person through whom he claims. Section 131: Production of documents which another person, having possession, could refuse to produce. No one shall be compelled to produce documents in his possession, which any other person would be entitled to refuse to produce if they were in his possession, unless such last-mentioned person consents to their production." The Court has discretion in the matter relating to production of documents though it is a judicial discretion. It can only direct the documents to be produced in Court for inspection when they throw some light into the case and in possession of the party on the ground that the documents are related to the matter in question in the suit. It can only direct the documents to be produced in Court for inspection when they throw some light into the case and in possession of the party on the ground that the documents are related to the matter in question in the suit. The disputed documents which had been called for by the petiti- oners from the custody of Bhartruhari Mahatab, opp. party in all these 3 revisions are item Nos. 1, 3, 4. 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the list (Annexure-Y) of the civil revisions. These documents are as follows : (1) "The object and Rules of Prajatantra Prachar Samiti (3) The Sale Deed No. 4148 dated 9-6-1959 executed by Late Motilal Pandit in favour of Prajatanta Prachar Samiti through its Chairman Dr. H.K. Mahatab. (4) Registered Deed dated 6-4-1961 constituting the Trust Board of Prajatantra Prachar Samiti bearing No. 64 dated 6-4-196l. (5) The Registered Mortgage Deed dated 15-9-1961 between Trustees of Prajatantra Prachar Samiti and Orissa State Finance Corporation bearing No. 6676 dated 15-9-1961. (7) Original Lease Deed executed by Collector. Cuttack in favour of Prajatantra Prachar Samiti dated 12-5-1983 bearing No. 2516 dated 12-5-1983 in respect of Sabik Khata No. 683, Sabik Plot No. 1160, Area Ac. 1. 311 decimals, 6 Kadis. (8) Original Lease Deed executed by Collector, Cuttack in respect of Hal Khata No. 493, Hal Plot Nos. 1165 and 1715, Deed No. 2509 Area Ac. 0.407 decimals. (9) Original Registered Power of Attorney dated 11-6-1985 executed by Dr. Harekrushna Mahatab as Chairman, Prajatantra Prachar Samiti and Board of Trustees in favour of Shri Basanta Kumar Biswal (irrevocable power of Attroney) vide Registration bearing No. 496 dated 11-6-1985. (10) Registered Deed dated 24-9-1985 amending the Trust Deed dated 6-4-1961 executed by Dr. Harekrushna Mahatab as Chairman, Prajatantra Prachar Samiti under Deed No. 661 of the same date." The other two documents i. e. item Nos. 2 and 6 have already been directed to be produced as Bhartruhari Mahatab has admitted the possession thereof and was willing to produce them before the Court. 9. In the present case Prajatantra Prachar Samiti is not a party in the suit in question. 2 and 6 have already been directed to be produced as Bhartruhari Mahatab has admitted the possession thereof and was willing to produce them before the Court. 9. In the present case Prajatantra Prachar Samiti is not a party in the suit in question. Had the Prajatantra Prachar Samiti been a party to the suit, under Order 11, Rule 14, C. P. C, it would be lawful for the Court at any time during the pendency of the suit, to require the production of such documents in his possession relating to any matter in question in the suit subject to its lawful objections. 10. In the present case, however, as already stated, Prajatantra Prachar Samiti is not a party to the suit though Basanta Kumar Biswal, the working President of the Board of Prajatantra Prachar Samiti is a party and the cause title of the suit does not indicate that Basanta Kumar Biswal represents the Prajatantra Prachar Samiti in the suit and Bhartruhari Mahatab in his objection has stated that he is not in possession of those documents in his individual capacity and therefore, he could not have been asked for production of those documents. Assuming that he had possessed the documents as a trustee or agent of the Prajatantra Prachar Samiti, production of documents by him is subject to Section 131(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. He could not be compelled to produce the documents in his possession as an agent of trustee of the Prajatantra Prachar Samiti, which Prajatantra Prachar Samiti could have refused to produce had it been in possession unless Prajatantra Prachar Samiti has consented for such production in the Court. The documents appear to belong to Prajatantra Prachar Samiti from its description and concern. The trial Court, therefore, is justified in refusing the prayer of the petitioner in directing the opp. party Bhartruhari Mahatab to produce the said documents namely items Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in Court. That apart the trial Court was also not satisfied that those documents in any way related to the matter in question in the suit or threw any light upon the case. party Bhartruhari Mahatab to produce the said documents namely items Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in Court. That apart the trial Court was also not satisfied that those documents in any way related to the matter in question in the suit or threw any light upon the case. Assuming the documents in question were related to the issue and threw some light, upon the case, production of those documents by Bhartruhari Mahatab the opp, party could not have been made for the reasons given above, In exercise of my revision jurisdiction, I do not like to hold a different view as from the argument on his matter, I do not consider this finding is in any way perverse, suffers from error of jurisdiction and any material irregularity. I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application for production of the documents enumerated in item No. 1, 3, 4, 5. 7, 8 and 9 by Bhartruhari Mahatab, the petitioner in the probate case. 11. Regarding the second question about the analogous hearing of the suits, the parties in the suits are different and the prayers sought for in the two suits are also different. On the pleadings of the parties, different issues have already been framed. In this view of the matter, it is not proper to allow the suits to be heard analogously and the trial Court is correct in rejecting the application for analogous hearing. In the result, the Civil Revisions are dismissed, but it the circumstances the parties to bear their costs of the civil revisions. Final Result : Dismissed