Judgment : This revision arises against the order dated 20.8.2003 passed by the Fast Track Court No.IV, (Additional District Court), Tiruppur allowing the petition in I.A.No.986 of 2003 in O.S.No.10 of 2003 on the file of that Court, which was a petition filed under0.12, Rule 8 and Sec.151 of Civil Procedure Code to direct the respondent to produce certain documents. 2. Thefacts leading to the filing of the above revision are as follows: The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.9.96 lakhs and that the second defendant issued a cheque dated 15.11.1999 for a sum of Rs.8,01,254 in favour of Thiruppur Petrol and Oil Trading Company (third party herein) and that the said cheque was deposited with the revision petitioner/first defendant for collection, who had presented it to the plaintiff bank for payment on the same day, viz., 15.11.1999. At that time, there were no funds available and since at the early office hours on 16.1.1999 when the 2nd defendant deposited a pay order dated 16.11.1999 for Rs.8 lakhs issued by the first defendant, the plaintiff after verification over phone, honoured the above cheque dated 15.11.1999 with the funds available from the pay order. 3. But, later on, the pay order was returned by the last defendant with the endorsement, “Payment stopped - fraudulently obtained”. It is as against the withholding payment of its pay order, the suit for recovery of the said sum was filed by the respondent/plaintiff bank and it is in the process of that suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed a petition underO.12, Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code for a direction to the revision petitioner/first defendant to produce certain documents. Those documents are: • (1) Application for the purchase of pay order No.202649 dated 16.11.1999; • (2) Records to show the remittance of money by the plaintiff for the Pay Order No.2022649 dated 16.11.1999; • (3) True copy of the folio of Tiruppur Petrol and Oil Trading Company in the books of the first defendant bank; • (4) The Power of Attorney dated 30.11.1999 executed by M.Senthilvel in favour of the first defendant. 4. 4. It is after filingcounter by the first defendant and after hearing both sides, the Court below found that the required documents were available under the custody of the revision petitioner/ first defendant and directed the revision petitioner to produce all the documents into Court subject to relevancy and utility of those documents. It is against that order, this revision petition was preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the pay order dated 16.11.1999 and the cheque dated 15.11.1999 might have been honoured. Again, what was contended is that it was a fraudulent pay order and therefore, payment ought not to have been made. 6. Whether the pay order was a fraudulent one or not is an issue to be determined in the course of the trial of the suit. Again the question as to whether the cheque ought not to have been honoured on 15.11.1999 for want of funds or that the action of the respondent/plaintiff bank in honouring the cheque dated 15.11.1999 with the funds available by way of pay order dated 16.1.1999 was done in accordance with law, is also to be probed into in the course of trial. This Court cannot answer all those points on merits at this stage either way. 7. The question before this Court is as to whether in answering those issues, the required documents are relevant or not. As contended by the Court below, the relevancy and utility can be explored only during the course of trial. This Court cannot insist any party, requiring those documents to prove their case in the suit, to first prove their exact case of relevancy and utility of those documents before the trial is commenced. At this contest, what we are concerned is to see only the prima facie relevancy and utility. If there is a prima facie case of relevancy, the balance of convenience is only in favour of the respondent/plaintiff who have to prove their case by utilising the required documents an that opportunity cannot be shut even at the threshold. The only inconvenience in our eyes for the revision petitioner is the delay in returning those documents. In the event of an early return of those documents, there cannot be any hardship caused to the revision petitioner. 8. The only inconvenience in our eyes for the revision petitioner is the delay in returning those documents. In the event of an early return of those documents, there cannot be any hardship caused to the revision petitioner. 8. As a matter of fact, Appendix in to the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 provides in its Sec.6 that inspection of books by an order of Court can be made and such order may be made either with or without summoning the bank. 9. So far as the relevancy is concerned, the pay order was said to have been taken at the instance of one of the parties to the cheque. Further, when the pay order itself was directed as ‘fraudulent one’ by the revision petitioner, then the person against whom such allegation of fraud was alleged, has the right to defend and therefore, the particulars in respect of the pay order have to be summoned, in order to decide on merits all the various aspects of the issue in question. Thus this revision is devoid of merits and order of Court below confirmed. As mentioned earlier, it could be effectuated without any hardship to any of the parties. Therefore, we can spell a time bound disposal and that the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit within three months upon receipt of the records. 10. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.