Honble JAIN, J.–The plaintiff-petititoner, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2.6.1995 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) cum Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bikaner, by which the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioners under order 11 Rule 14 CPC was dismissed, have filed this revision petition under Section 115 CPC. (2). The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for injunction against the defendant non-petitioners with the averments that there is a building situated in the Bikaner City known as `Sukhlekha Katla. The building is more than 100 to 150 years old. A large number of tenants are residing in that building. The defendants No. 1 to 9 are also having their offices in this building. The defendant non-petitioners No.1 to 8 have also got a strong room. According to the plaintiffs, the condition of the building has become very weak and there is every danger of its collapse at any time. The railway line, which was meter gauge, has been converted into broad gauge. Violent vibrations generated by the railway line, further aggravated the life of the building. The natural calamities also contributed in this regard in as much as there was a he- avy rainfall on 8th and 9th July, 1993 and the rain water entered in the Bank premises of non- petitioners No.1 to 8 and even entered into the strong room of the Bank. So much so the Bank could not function on the said dates. The non-petitioners also started illegal construction without the permission of the plaintiffs, which has caused many cracks in the building. The plaintiff-petitioners therefore, prayed that the non-petitioners be restrained from going ahead with the alleged illegal construction . The defendant non-petitioners submitted a written statement to the suit and denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff- petitioners on 28.5.1993. The plaintiff-petitioners moved an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC and prayed that the defendant non-petitioners may be ordered to produce the agreement that was executed between non-petitioners No. 1 to 9 as also the map that was prepared for carrying-out the construction work. The non-petitioners No.1 and 2 also got prepared a site report by the Civil Engineer in respect of the condition of the building. That report was also sought to be produced by the defendants. The application was opposed by the non-petitioners. The non-petitioners No.1 and 2 also got prepared a site report by the Civil Engineer in respect of the condition of the building. That report was also sought to be produced by the defendants. The application was opposed by the non-petitioners. The learned trial Court by its order dated 2.6.95 dismissed the above application holding that the above documents are not relevant to the issues of the suit. The learned trial Court also observed that a Commissioner has been appointed to inspect the site of the building and submit his report. That report would enlighten the court about the exact condition of the building. (3). Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners did not appear but I considered the revision petition on merits and also heard learned counsel for the defen- dant non-petitioners. (4). In my opinion, the learned trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in dismissing the application of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not stated in their application how the above three documents, which the non-petitioners prepared, were relevant for adjudicating the relevant issues framed in the suit. (5). A perusal of the provisions contained in Order 11, Rule 14 CPC shows that the court has got a discretion in the matter for making an order for production of documents in the possession of another party. Therefore, the Court will pass an order under O. 11, R. 14 CPC after considering the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Hence the power of the Court to direct production of documents by any party at any time during the pendency of the suit cannot be questioned. (6). The twin condition for directing the production of documents by the opposite party is that the documents are in the power and possession of the opposite party and that they relate to the controversy in that suit. (7). The Apex Court in Basangouda vs. Dr. S.B. Amarkhed & Ors. (1), has laid down that the Court should examine expediency, justness and relevancy of the documents sought to be produced by the opposite party in a suit. In the instant case, it appears that the plaintiffs sought production of the above three documents without assigning any relevancy for production of the documents with regard to the matter of the suit. (1), has laid down that the Court should examine expediency, justness and relevancy of the documents sought to be produced by the opposite party in a suit. In the instant case, it appears that the plaintiffs sought production of the above three documents without assigning any relevancy for production of the documents with regard to the matter of the suit. A party cannot be allowed the liberty of making a roving enquiry to fish-out information from the opposite party, which may or may not be relevant. From the material available on record, the exact nature of documents cannot be spelt-out. It was the duty of the plaintiffs to assist the Court for assessing the relevancy of the proposed documents. The defendant has failed to discharge the above legal obligation. The trial Court has correctly observed that a Commissioner has been appointed to inspect the site and furnish his report about the condition of the building. (8). I, therefore, find no jurisdictional infirmity in the order of the learned trial Court. The petition has got no force and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.