Judgment :- S.S. SUBRAMANI, J. Opposite parties 2 and 3 in O.P. No.40 of 1997, on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, are the revision Petitioners. First respondent herein filed a complaint for recovery of deposit amount of Rs. 2, 00, 000 with interest at 24% from the date of deposit till the date of maturity and thereafter at 18% from the date of maturity till the date of settlement, and for compensation of not less than Rs. 5, 000 for mental agony, and for other reliefs. 2. The claim of the first respondent was seriously disputed by the petitioners herein, and, according to them, the transaction between them is that of debtor and creditor. It is their case that the complainant has advanced a personal loan of Rs. one lakh to the first petitioner by cheque and he has also taken certain blank papers, and the same were utilised for the purpose of filing the complaint. They also disputed the jurisdiction of the Consumer Redressal Forum on the ground that there is a civil dispute which requires elaborate evidence. According to them, there was no deficiency of service, nor is the first respondent a consumer. 3. When the matter was posted for trial, these petitioners wanted the first respondent to file certain documents. They filed an application requesting the Forum to give necessary direction to the respondent to produce the same. Notice was also given to the counsel for first respondent appearing on his behalf before the Consumer Forum. They wanted production of the cheque book of the first respondent and also his passbook. Even though such an application was filed, no order was passed herein and the documents were also not filed before the Forum. Therefore, these petitioners wanted at least to take an adverse inference for non-production. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Consumer Forum was of the opinion that the procedure followed by civil court will not apply to Consumer Court and, therefore, even production of documents is not contemplated, nor can there be a question of adverse inference. It is also their case that the Forum refused to pass a written order, and orally refused their prayer. It is said that thereafter the case was posted for orders. 5. When the revision came up for admission, I ordered notice of motion. In response to that, first respondent entered appearance. It is also their case that the Forum refused to pass a written order, and orally refused their prayer. It is said that thereafter the case was posted for orders. 5. When the revision came up for admission, I ordered notice of motion. In response to that, first respondent entered appearance. I heard the matter in detail. 6. I feel that the petitioners must be given an opportunity to prove their case that there' is a creditor and debtor relationship between the first respondent and the petitioners. They also seek the assistance of this Court for production of relevant evidence in the possession of the complainant to prove same. The opinion expressed by the Consumer Forum that the procedure of civil court will not apply to a Consumer Forum, though to a certain extent is correct, it cannot be said that the procedure will not apply under any circumstances. The Consumer Forum is also a Judicial Tribunal which also the trappings of court. The principles of natural justice will apply to a quasi-judicial Tribunal. The petitioner's request is for a direction to the complainant to produce certain documents in his custody, which will prove their case. Giving an opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their case is only an extension of the principles of natural justice. Even if the Civil Procedure Code will not apply, as I said earlier, the principles of natural justice contemplate the taking of evidence and also the opportunity to give evidence. If the complainant is in possession of any record, the petitioners (opposite parties) are also entitled to get the assistance of the court or the Tribunal to compel him to produce the same, and, in spite of a direction for production of documents if the party fails to produce the same, an adverse inference also can he taken. This principle is not confined to civil courts only. It applies to quasi-judicial Tribunals also. 7. In this case, the petitioners have moved an application asking the first respondent to produce certain documents which are in his possession. They are absolutely necessary to substantiate their case. 8. I direct the Consumer Forum to pass orders on the application filed by the petitioners (notice to the respondent/complainant (K. Reghupathy) to produce documents. The notice is addressed to Mr. J. V. George, B.Com., D.L.L., 12-E, Sri Nagar, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-45 (Authorised representative of the respondent). They are absolutely necessary to substantiate their case. 8. I direct the Consumer Forum to pass orders on the application filed by the petitioners (notice to the respondent/complainant (K. Reghupathy) to produce documents. The notice is addressed to Mr. J. V. George, B.Com., D.L.L., 12-E, Sri Nagar, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-45 (Authorised representative of the respondent). The Tribunal, i.e., the Forum is directed to fix a time for production of those documents. In case the 1st respondent is not in a position to produce the same, the Forum must direct him to file an affidavit explaining the reasons therefor. In case of failure on the part of the first respondent (complainant) to produce the documents, or affidavit explaining the reasons for non-production, the Consumer Forum is also bound to take an adverse inference against him. I allow this revision as indicated above. The Consumer Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, is directed to proceed with the complaint taking into consideration the directions given above and thereafter dispose of the same in accordance with law. No further order is necessary in C.M.P. No. 14186 of 1997. No order as to costs.