Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner filed claim application under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation on account of death of her son in an accident against the owner as well as the insurer of the vehicle involved therein. 2. After examination of DW 1, on 17.12.1993, the petitioner filed a petition for direction to the insurance company (defendant No. 2) to produce papers relating to payment of the amount of compensation to the owner of the Bus towards repairs on account of the accident in question. Neither any rejoinder thereto was filed. nor any-body objected to the said prayer of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, those papers were required to falsify the statement of DW1. By the impugned order dated 21.12.1993, the petitioners prayer has been rejected. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the plaintiffs prayer for giving direction to the defendant No. 2 for filing relevant papers of claim application cannot be allowed, because it was the duty of the plaintiff to file relevant papers of the claim case. 3. Under order XI Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party is entitled to file a petition for direction to the other side to produce a document from his custody and if the court in its discretion is of the opinion that the said document is required for delivering a fair judgment in the case or for saving costs, such direction may be given. Documents containing information, directly or indirectly, enabling a party to advance his own case or to damage his opponents case are document which relate to the matter in question in the suit. In fact, the object of Order XI Rule 12 is also to elicit admissions from the opposite parties that may obviate the necessity to produce lengthy evidence and expedite disposal. 4. In fact, the object of Order XI Rule 12 is also to elicit admissions from the opposite parties that may obviate the necessity to produce lengthy evidence and expedite disposal. 4. In the present case, from the aforesaid observations of the learned Judge, it appears that under misconception, the plaintiffs request for directing the defendant No. 2 for filing the papers in question were taken to be the papers of claim application and the same was refused on the ground that it was the duty of the plaintiff to file relevant papers of the claim case, In my opinion, on the petitioners application dated 17.12.193, the trial court was required to consider the prayer under the provisions of Order XI Rule 12 dispose of the same in accordance with law. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 21.12.1993 rejecting the petitioners petition dated 17.12.1993 is set aside and the trial court is directed to consider the said petition afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 6. In the result, this application is allowed with the aforesaid direction. However, there will be no order as to costs.