MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. By this order, I shall dispose of I.A. Nos. 5120/2007 and 15164/2007 filed by the defendant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. In I.A. No. 5120/2007, a prayer is made that the direction be issued to the plaintiff to disclose all the documents mentioned in the letters dated 14th August, 2003, 26th September, 2003 and 3rd November, 2003 and in failure to comply with the said requirements, the suit shall be dismissed and in the meanwhile, further proceedings in the suit shall be stayed. 3. In another I.A. No. 15164/2007, the prayer has been made for recalling/setting aside of the order dated 14th November, 2008 passed by this court wherein it was observed that the pendency of the I.A. No. 5120/2007 was not coming in the way of recording evidence which is now fixed for 23rd January, 2009 for cross-examination of PW-1. 4. The brief facts are that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 11,89,86,521/- against the defendant. The suit was filed on 16th March, 2004. The admission/denial of documents was completed by the parties on 8th July, 2005. Issues were framed in the matter on 24th April, 2006. The plaintiff was given time to file the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. The said affidavit was filed by the plaintiff on 14th September, 2006. PW-1 was cross-examined partly on 31st October, 2006. 5. It appears from the record that when the matter was listed on 19th April, 2007 before the Joint Registrar, the same was adjourned to 10th May, 2007 for remaining cross-examination of PW-1. It was on 30th April, 2007 when defendant filed the application under Section 151 of the CPC being I.A. No. 5120/2007 for disclosing the documents mentioned in the letters. It is stated that the said documents are in the possession and custody of the plaintiff and in order to adjudicate the present suit, the plaintiff is required to disclose such documents and also to produce the documents for inspection. 6. In reply to I.A. No. 5120/2007, the plaintiff has stated that the said documents sought by the defendant are not part of the pleadings and do not relate to the subject matter of the suit. 6. In reply to I.A. No. 5120/2007, the plaintiff has stated that the said documents sought by the defendant are not part of the pleadings and do not relate to the subject matter of the suit. It is also stated that the said documents have not been dealt with by the defendant in its written statement and even otherwise disclosure of the documents are not necessary for the adjudication and/or of the present suit. This application is not maintainable and it has been filed only to delay the trial. The said documents have not been referred in any of pleadings or affidavits filed by the plaintiff nor any question pertaining to the documents are asked to the witness in cross-examination. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the applications as well as replies filed by the plaintiff. In my considered view, I feel that both the applications are not maintainable and the same are dismissed for the following reasons:- (a) The suit is not based upon the letters dated 14th August, 2003, 26th September, 2003 and 3rd November, 2003 and these letters are subject matter of the suit filed by the plaintiff in the High Court of Calcutta being Suit No. 219/2007. (b) It is not in dispute that the suit pending in this court is for recovery of money. The plaintiff is not assailing or challenging the issuance of three letters in the present suit. (c) It is admitted fact between the parties that the Calcutta High Court in I.A No. 553/2007 has restrained the defendant by an interim order dated 21st September, 2007 from giving effect to the above said letters. (d) Prior to the filing of the suit in Calcutta High Court, the plaintiff filed the Writ Petition No. 8134/2003 in this court assailing the action taken by the defendant. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the plaintiff on 12th September, 2007 in the presence of the defendant and the interim measures granted in the writ petition were condoned to be continued for certain period for taking the requisite remedy in accordance with law, thereafter, the suit was filed in Calcutta High Court by the plaintiff. 8. The suit filed by the plaintiff is merely for recovery of the amount, no issue in this regard has been framed. 8. The suit filed by the plaintiff is merely for recovery of the amount, no issue in this regard has been framed. The application by the defendant under Section 151 of the CPC is otherwise belated which has been filed when the part cross-examination of plaintiff is already recorded. In case the defendant wishes to prove his case on the basis of these documents, the defendant is at liberty to summon the same in accordance with law. Therefore, the application being I.A. No. 5120/2007 is totally misconceived and is not maintainable and it appears to have been filed to delay progress of the suit. 9. The other application filed by the defendant being I.A. No. 15164/2007 for recalling/setting aside of the order dated 14th November, 2008 is also not maintainable as the said order was passed in the presence of the parties where the directions have been issued that pendency of I.A. No. 5120/2007 would not come in the way of recording of evidence. No appeal against the said order has been filed, and it cannot be modified/set aside by filing of the application under Section 151 of the CPC by this court. 10. In view of the above, both the applications are dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff before the next date of hearing. List this matter before the Joint Registrar on 23rd January, 2009, the date already fixed.