Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.:- Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for revisionists and perused the record. Facts in brief of present case are to the effect that initially revisionist/plaintiffs filed a Suit for recovery (registered as Regular Suit No. 150 of 2000) in the court of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Unnao, in which written statement field by defendants (M/s Sultan Leather Finishers Pvt. Ltd. and others). Thereafter, revisionist/plaintiffs moved an application (registered as Paper No. C-374) under Order XI Rule 14 C.P.C. supported by an affidavit requesting therein that defendants may be directed to produce the certain documents as mentioned therein for example balance-sheet etc., allowed vide order dated 27.11.2010. As per the version of learned counsel for revisionists, as entire/correct documents as sought by the plaintiffs/revisionists were not produced/filed by defendants with oblique motive, so they moved another application (registered as Paper no. C-384) under Order XI Rule 14 C.P.C. Defendants filed their objections(registered as Paper no. C-389) and court below heard the matter in question and vide order dated 19.02.2011 rejected revisionists' application ( Paper No. C-387) inter alia observing therein that under what manner and how the said confidential documents which are requested to be produced by respondents, the copy of the same have been obtained by them. Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for revisionists while assailing impugned order dated 19.02.2011 submits that action on the part of court below thereby rejecting application under Order XI Rule 14 C.P.C., moved by revisionists, is totally incorrect and wrong as after passing Assessment order for a particular assessment year by Competent Authority the documents sought to be produced are not confidential documents, accordingly, it is submitted by revisionists' counsel that the said action is totally contrary to law and against the provisions as provided under Order XI Rule 14 C.P.C. wherein legislature provided to the effect that it shall be lawful for the Court at any time during the pendency of any Suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath of such of the documents in his possession or power. In view of the above said facts, I feel appropriate before deciding the controversy involved in present case that respondents may be heard. Accordingly, notices are issued to respondent nos. 1 to 4. In view of the above said facts, I feel appropriate before deciding the controversy involved in present case that respondents may be heard. Accordingly, notices are issued to respondent nos. 1 to 4. In addition to regular mode of service, learned counsel for revisionists is permitted to serve respondent nos. 1 to 4 outside the Court for which office is directed to issue necessary 'Dasti-summon'. List/put up on 25.04.2011 as fresh. As an interim measure, it is provided that revisionists shall move an application before the trial court for adjournment of the matter in question fixed before it and if the same is moved, the trial court shall fix the matter after 25.04.2011.