Y. B. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE first respondent herein is the original plaintiff, whereas the present petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 4 are original defendant nos. 1 to 4 respectively. The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 251 of 1991 in the court of civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajkot challenging her transfer order from Rajkot to Morbi on the ground that the said transfer was effected in order to favour and accommodate defendant nos. 2 and 3 on the recommendation of one MLA, and that therefore such a transfer order cannot be said to be issued in the normal exigencies of service. ( 2 ) DURING the course of the suit the said plaintiff gave an application Exh. 16 wherein, after setting out the relevant facts a prayer was made for discovery and production of certain documents specified in the said application. In support of the prayer the plaintiff specifically pleaded the relevant facts to the effect that the transfer of the plaintiff has been effected to favour and accommodate defendant nos. 2 and 3 and this has been done on the recommendation of one MLA, and these facts would be apparent and could be established if the documents specified in the application were directed to be discovered and/or disclosed, (and thereafter produced) under the relevant provisions of Order 11, rule 12 ete. of CPC. The plaintiff further averred that the documents in respect of which discovery is sought are in the custody and possession of the petitioner first defendant and that therefore the first defendant should be ordered to give discovery of the same. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing the parties, the trial court granted the application of the plaintiff and by its order dated 3rd. February, 1992 directed the first defendant (the petitioner) to give discovery of the documents at item nos. l to 9 and 11 to 14 mentioned in application Exh. 16. ( 4 ) IT is this order directing defendant no. 1 to make discovery of the said documents which is the subject matter of the present revision. February, 1992 directed the first defendant (the petitioner) to give discovery of the documents at item nos. l to 9 and 11 to 14 mentioned in application Exh. 16. ( 4 ) IT is this order directing defendant no. 1 to make discovery of the said documents which is the subject matter of the present revision. ( 5 ) AT the outset it must be noted and borne in mind that although the petitioner-first defendant has come to this court by way of the present revision under section 115 of CPC, confidentiality in respect of the documents in regard to which discovery has been ordered, has not been claimed by the State. Such confidentiaily has not been claimed cither by filing objections in writing to the plaintiffs application Exh. 16 or by urging the same orally, either before thc trial court or even in the present revision. ( 6 ) IT must be further noted and must be kept in mind that the petitioner-first defendant does not appear to have filed any reply and/or objections to the plaintiffs application Exh. 16 in the trial court. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner was also unable to point out as to whether any objections were raised even by way of oral submissions before the trial court, by the petitioner-first defendant, or the fourth defendant. ( 7 ) IT, therefore, becomes clear that the plaintiffs application Exh. 16 was contested only by defendant nos. 2 and 3 who are private parties and not by the present petitioner. ( 8 ) THE only contention under the circumstances which counsel for the petitioner could then raise in-the. present revision is that the documents in respect of which the. discovery is sought arc not relevant to the subject matter of the controversy in the suit. This contention is obviously misconceived inasmuch as the trial court, while dealing with the objections raised by defendant nos. 2 and 3, has clearly dealt with this aspect and has also arrived at a conclusion that the discovery of the documents in question would throw considerable light on the facts which are in controversy in the suit. This finding is not specifically so worded as expressed by me herein inasmuch as the objections raised by defendant nos. 2 and 3 before the trial court were also not specific as regards the relevancy of the documents. This finding is not specifically so worded as expressed by me herein inasmuch as the objections raised by defendant nos. 2 and 3 before the trial court were also not specific as regards the relevancy of the documents. However, while dealing with such objections generally the trial court hasdefinitely arrived at a conclusion that the documents would go a long way in throwing light on the facts which are in controversy in the suit. ( 9 ) ON a comprehensive reading of the impugned order I am satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial court are reasonable and sustainable and that it cannot be said that the documents in respect of which discovery has been directed are not relevant to the controversy and /or ihe facts involved in the suit. ( 10 ) IN the premises aforesaid the impugned order is required to be sustained and the present revision is, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. .