ORDER : The defendant filed the present writ petition against the order dated 28.03.2017 on I.A. made in S.C.No.455/2014 rejecting the application filed by him under Order 11 Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The respondent, who is the plaintiff before the trial Court filed suit for recovery of sum of Rs.53,654/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. contending that it was doing dealing business in Electrical Goods, D.C. Fans equipments Hospital and other allied products and the defendant/petitioner herein was one of the regular customer of the plaintiff and he used to purchase material/products of their requirements by raising invoices in usual course of business on credit basis. It is further contended that the defendant is having transactions with the plaintiff from long time and the plaintiff has maintained the regular account of the defendant in ledger maintained by them in usual course of business as per the usage and customs and the said account is running account (now maintaining the accounts in computerized manner), etc. and contended that inspite of repeated demand for payment of balance amount along with interest, the defendant has not paid. Therefore, the plaintiff/respondent herein filed suit for recovery of money as prayed for. 3. The defendant/petitioner herein filed written statement and admitted the transactions with the plaintiff and denied the other averments and contended that there is no amount due to the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. When the matter was posted for defendant’s evidence, the defendant/petitioner herein filed application under Order 11 Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure to direct the plaintiff/respondent herein to produce the copy of Ex.D-11 which has been marked by DW.1 bearing Credit Note C/NFAN/71 dated 30.03.2009 and contended that the petitioner is claiming that there was a running bill of the respondent in dealing with the petitioner company, but there was no existence of running bill and the respondent used to clear the same bill to bill payment. It was further contended that the Sales Officer who used to visit and communicate with the respondent and none of the other employees or the officials of the accounts department have any knowledge about the transaction between the petitioner and respondent. 5. The petitioner claims that their accounts are very clear and intact. But the petitioner are hesitant in producing the documents sought for. 5. The petitioner claims that their accounts are very clear and intact. But the petitioner are hesitant in producing the documents sought for. Though this Court has directed the petitioner to produce the transaction details but the petitioner has not produced documents related to the transaction between them. But only few documents of invoices and credit note were produced and informed the court that the documents were the only documents with them and further contended that Ex.D-11 is the document issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent but the respondent has not produced their copy of Ex.D-11 which is very essential document in the above case. The petitioner has taken several defective material with in the warranty which was given by the respondent and was not replaced/returned or issued credit note to the respondent. This itself clearly shows that illegal and defective accounts of the petitioner company. Therefore, the defendant sought to direct the plaintiff to produce their copy of the credit note marked in the case as Ex.D-11. 6. Said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing written statement but did not deny the fact of issue of the said Ex.D-11 in favour of the defendant. 7. The trial Court considering the application and objections, by the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 rejected the application mainly on the ground that the question of directing the plaintiff to produce copy of Ex.D-11 is irrelevant and also it is not necessary for adjudication of the matter. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 9. Sri G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that the trial Court has not considered the application filed by the petitioner for direction to the plaintiff to produce Ex.D-11. In the application it is specifically narrated the business transaction between him and the respondent and Ex.D-11 is a crucial document to decide the issue for recovery of the amount. The trial Court has not considered the said application in a proper perspective. In the application it is specifically narrated the business transaction between him and the respondent and Ex.D-11 is a crucial document to decide the issue for recovery of the amount. The trial Court has not considered the said application in a proper perspective. He would further contend that the rejection of the application by the trial Court is mainly on the ground that production of copy of Ex.D-11 is irrelevant and not necessary for adjudication of the matter, since the issue itself will be resolved by production of Ex.D-11. The same has not been done. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by the trail Court by allowing the present writ petition. 10. Per contra, Sri Thirthappa, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the respondent who is the petitioner in S.C.No.455/2014 issued Ex.D-11 document in favour of the present petitioner/respondent before the trial Court. According to the respondent, the said document is essential to resolve the dispute between the parties. The issuance of Ex.D-11 already marked at the instance of DW.1 is not disputed. The trial Court erroneously recorded a finding that Ex.D-11 is irrelevant and not necessary for adjudication of the matter. When Ex.D-11 is already marked, there is no impediment for the plaintiff/respondent herein to produce the original copy or retained copy. The same has not been considered by the trial Court. Sri Thirthappa, learned counsel seeks two weeks time to produce the said document before the trial Court. The said submission is placed on record. 11. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial Court dated 28.03.2017 on I.A. filed under Order 11 Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure made in S.C.No.455/2014 is quashed. I.A. filed by the respondent/present petitioner is allowed. The petitioner in S.C.No.455/2014 is directed to produce copy of Ex.D-11 which is marked at the instance of DW.1 bearing Credit Note No.C/NFAN/71 dated 30.03.2009 before the trial Court within a period of two weeks. Ordered accordingly.