Honble MUKHERJI, CJ. – This revisional application is filed by the defendant-petitioner, impugning an order dated 13.9.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.2 Jaipur City at Jaipur, in civil suit No. 72/1995, dismissing an application under O.XI R. 12 read with Section 151 CPC. (2). The case of the defendant-petitioner is that it is occupying premises at plot No.1 Ajmer Road, Jaipur, as a tenant for its district office and a portion of the premises is occupied for the residence of the District Manager. The further contention of the tenant-petitioner is that there was a vacant plot on which the rented premises was constructed as per the requirement of the petitioner company pursuant to an agreement dated 17.3.1967 and after the construction was over, a lease deed was executed on 23.1.1965 and since then the petitioner company is occupying the premise as a tenant. Ramchandra Mundra, the original landlord and lessor, filed a civil suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity, sub letting, default in payment of rent, material alteration etc. The plaintiff closed his evidence after producing the testimony of five witnesses including himself (who is now dead) and his two grand sons and the case was fixed for evidence on behalf of the defendant-petitioner company. The petitioner company, despite a lapse of considerable time, has come to know that the deceased-plaintiff and his family members are having very many premises, not only for their residential house but also for their business purposes and as and when the details of the same came to its knowledge, the petitioner company moved an application on 30.1.1993 with an affidavit categorising the application as one under O.XI Rr. 1, 12 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC and prayed for an answer from the plaintiff in the shape of interrogatories and to disclose the documents and produce the relevant documents which were in the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not file any reply but his learned advocate sought to contest the application by making arguments in Court and the trial Court by order dated 6.2.1993 rejected the application and the defendant-petitioner company thereafter moved a revisional application before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 273/1993. The plaintiff did not file any reply but his learned advocate sought to contest the application by making arguments in Court and the trial Court by order dated 6.2.1993 rejected the application and the defendant-petitioner company thereafter moved a revisional application before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 273/1993. Unfortunately, since the learned advocate for the petitioner could not be present on 9.4.1993 on account of a strike of the learned advocates, the revisional application was dismissed and thereafter the petitioner company filed a review petition which was disposed of by an order dated 5.8.1993 with liberty being granted to the petitioner to file another application under O.XI Rr. 12 and 14 CPC, making it clear that the earlier order would not come in the way of the petitioner. The petitioner company, thereafter filed two applications one under O.XI R. 12 read with Section 151 CPC and the other under O.XI R. 14 read with Section 151 CPC before the trial Court. The first one was rejected by the order dated 10.9.1993 against which the petitioner company filed a revisional application before this Court, which stood allowed by an order dated 1.11.1994 in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 940/1993. It was observed, inter alia, in the said revisional application that the trial court has not done its duty, and once the matter under O.XI Rr. 12 and 14 CPC was not decided and there was a specific direction of the High Court to decide to matter on a fresh application, the court should not have rejected the application observing, inter alia, that the matter had already been decided. It was further observed that the trial Court has passed a perverse order and has failed to do its duty enjoined on it under law and has violated the earlier order of the High Court. Accordingly the order of the trial Court dated 10.9.1993 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial Court to decide afresh the application under O.XI Rr. 12 and 14 CPC on merits in accordance with law. There was a direction by the High Court to decide the suit with utmost expedition and if necessary, by proceeding day to day and the parties through their counsels were directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.11.1994. 12 and 14 CPC on merits in accordance with law. There was a direction by the High Court to decide the suit with utmost expedition and if necessary, by proceeding day to day and the parties through their counsels were directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.11.1994. On 15.3.1995 the original plaintiff expired and an application under O. XXII R. 3 CPC dated 5.5 1995 for effecting substitution and amendment of the plaint was filed by the widow of the deceased plaintiff, which was allowed by the trial Court on 20.7.1995 and an amended plaint was filed on 4.8.1995 by the widow of the deceased plaintiff. A written statement was also filed by the petitioner company on 22.9.1995 and the case thereafter came up for framing of the issues. The application under O.XI R. 12 and the application under O.XI R. 14 CPC, were pending before the trial Court and by order dated 13.9.1995 the application under O.XI R.12 C.P.C. was dismissed. Impugning the said order dated 13.9.1995, the petitioner company contended, inter alia, that the said application was rejected by the trial Court mainly on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiff (now deceased) has already been closed and the deceased plaintiff and his grand sons have already been examined in their examination in-chief and have also been cross-examined and that at the present stage the application, as filed, could not be allowed on its own merits but then the suit had to be decided on the evidence already available on record. It was further contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the trial Court ought not to have separately taken up the application under O.XI R. 12 CPC, but then the other application ought to have been considered as well on its own merits. The trial Court has almost repeated the previous mistake which it had done earlier in thinking the application to the prolix and not warranting any consideration whatsoever. The trial Court proceeded on the assumption that there was no further necessity to ask the landlord-opposite party to make discovery on oath of the documents which were referred to in the application of the defendant-petitioner company as if they were not related to the matter in question in the present suit. The trial Court proceeded on the assumption that there was no further necessity to ask the landlord-opposite party to make discovery on oath of the documents which were referred to in the application of the defendant-petitioner company as if they were not related to the matter in question in the present suit. Only if the trial Court would have arrived at the conclusion that the said documents are absolutely unnecessary for disposing of the suit fairly or at least for saving costs, could it be so rejected. The trial Court ought to have thought that the documents as asked for or in respect of which the discovery was asked for were relevant and disputed controversy in the suit as regards existence of alternative accommodation available at the disposal of the plaintiff and the other user that the other available accommodations as are sought made by the plaintiff and his grand sons at the present moment, are necessary to be so decided. (3) The learned advocate for the plaintiff-opposite party contended before me that the application so rejected did not come under the purview of a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the CPC and that if the order was allowed to stand, it would not occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the defendant company against whom it was made and hence, no interference was really called for. (4). The case of M/s. Bawandas Birdhi Chand vs. Asulal & Ors. (1) was cited. That was really a case pertaining to refusing leave to deliver interrogatories and the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the present one and are not called in to play in the present perspective. The learned advocate for the opposite party cited before me the decision rendered in Shambhu Lal Sharma vs. RSRTC & Ors. (2) , where it was observed, inter alia, that production of such documents which are necessary to facilitate properly and fairly the controversy between the parties, ought to have been allowed by the Court and there would be a grave injustice to the petitioner if the documents sought to be produced, be not produced. In the facts of the said case, however, rejection of an application by the trial Court through a production of such documents was held to be erroneous and the petitioners application, to that effect, stood allowed. In the facts of the said case, however, rejection of an application by the trial Court through a production of such documents was held to be erroneous and the petitioners application, to that effect, stood allowed. The facts of the said case are also distin- guishable from the present one. (5). I have given my anxious consideration to the reasons adduced by the trial Court in refusing the prayer for discovery for documents. It is indeed true that there was a prior direction by this Court that the case should be taken up for day to day hearing in between the parties. After such a direction was so passed by this Court and the matter was sent back to the trial Court for an expeditious hearing, the original plaintiff died. His widow and his grand sons are now the contesting parties and even if their testimony be already on record, tested by way of cross examination by the present defendant-petitioner company, in the changed perspective of amended pleadings and filing of written statement over again and further informa- tion having come to the knowledge of the defendant-petitioner that the plaintiffs family is already in occupation of very many premises in Jaipur which could be converted also for business purposes so as to find out some source of avocation for the original plaintiffs two grand children, it would be necessary on the part of the defendant-petitioner company to call for the particulars in respect of different houses which are there in possession of the original plaintiff or his family members or even his present two grand children or the original plaintiffs widow. Apart from those, the income-tax returns or the fixed deposit receipts are not really called for, for the purposes of determination of any of the controversies which are in dispute because of the facts that the plaintiffs family is in occupation of financial resources in the present context which is not very much under challenge and is more or less admitted by the present defendant. Whether or not the different houses in occupation of the original plaintiff and his family including the two grand children and the plaintiffs widow, would really make out a case for alternative accommodation so that the requirement for the present house which is the subject matter of the pre- sent suit, may be relevant for the disposal of the suit and for this purposes discovery of documents within a limited periphery only with regard to the very many houses, lands or buildings which are in occupation of the plaintiff, would be a relevant matter for further discovery of documents. The trial Court is directed to apply its mind over again and pass a limited order to that extent and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. To this extent only, the revisional application would stand allowed in part. I make it specifically clear that the defendant-petitioner has no locus standi to call for the particulars of the fixed deposit receipts of the plaintiff or his widow or his two grand children or their incomes tax returns since they are in no way relevant for disclosure for the purpose of the suit in the discovery of documents. There would be no order as to costs. (6). It is made clear that immediately after the disposal of the present application and the filing of necessary documents within the meaning of O.XI, Rr. 12, 13 and 14 CPC, the Court will proceed to hear out the suit on the basis of day to day trial as directed earlier.