JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. Perused the order impugned dated 18.7.1996 passed by learned trial Court, rejecting the application u/O. 11 R. 14 CPC with costs of Rs. 100/- on the ground that the burden of proof is upon the defendant. Another reason given by learned trial Court is that it was not brought to its notice as to how these documents were relevant in the controversy in dispute but in the same breadth learned trial Court has itself observed that the documents would be necessary to prove as to whether the defendant had made construction more than 36 x 108 Fts. 3. It is pertinent to observe that it was argued on behalf of plaintiff before the learned trial Court that the documents sought to be produced by way of moving an application were meant to establish as to whether the defendant has committed dis-obedience of the temporary injunction granted by the learned trial Court. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, I am of the opinion that the order impugned passed by learned trial Court is not sustainable and it deserves to be set aside Wilt a direction to learned trial Court to allow the application moved by plaintiff petitioner u/O. 11 R. 14 CPC with costs as he thinks fit and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the instant revision petition is finally disposed.Petition Allowed. *******