JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 22.1.08 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 39/06, whereby the trial court has allowed the application of the respondent-plaintiff under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 of CPC calling upon the petitioner-defendant to produce certain documents. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Rakesh Chandel for the petitioner that the trial court has called upon the petitioner to produce the documents which are not in possession of the petitioner. According to him if the petitioner does not produce the documents as directed by the trial court, the trial court shall treat the copies of the documents as admitted in evidence by way of secondary evidence. 3. However, the learned counsel Mr. V.V. Harit for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner-defendant has specifically admitted in his written statement that he had received the notice given by the respondent-plaintiff prior to the filing of the suit and, therefore, the trial court had directed him to produce the said notice. He also submitted that the original map of the suit premises was also with the petitioner as mentioned in the document Ex.2 and, therefore, the court had rightly directed the petitioner to produce the said map. 4. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement allegedly entered into between the parties. In the said suit, since the copies of the documents produced alongwith the affidavit of the plaintiff filed as the examination-in-chief, were exhibited, the petitioner-defendant had filed an application for de-exhibiting the said documents. The court therefore vide order dated 20.1.08 had deleted the exhibit Nos. 1,3,4 and 5 out of the said exhibited documents. The respondent-plaintiff thereafter submitted an application under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 of CPC calling upon the petitioner-defendant to produce certain documents, which has been partly allowed by the trial court vide the impugned order, inasmuch as the trial court has called upon the petitioner-defendant to produce the original notice and the original map, the copy of which were produced by the respondent-plaintiff, or to clarify the position as regards the said documents by filing the affidavit. Though it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not in possession of the said documents directed to be produced, the petitioner could clarify such stand before the trial court by filing the affidavit as directed in the impugned order itself. The impugned order is also in consonance with Order 11 Rule 12 and 13 of CPC as per which the petitioner-defendant is required to file affidavit in the prescribed form specifying as to for which of the documents he has objection. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the impugned order being not conclusive so far as marking of the documents in question as exhibits is concerned, and since the petitioner is called upon to file the affidavit with regard to the documents in question, the court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. However, it is clarified that the trial court shall take appropriate decision on exhibiting the documents in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the affidavit that may be filed by the petitioner. With this observation, the present petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******