ORDER : 1. Mr. Seshadri D, Adv. for Petitioners/defendants Mr. J.M. Anil Kumar, Adv. for Respondent/plaintiff The petitioners/defendants have filed this writ petition in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the defendants’ application seeking production of certain documents with the following observations: “The suit filed by the plaintiff seeking for recovery of money. The suit is of the year 2010. The present application is filed seeking direction to the Plaintiff for production of certain documents. The defendant has filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. On perusal of the written statement, there is no whisper about the documents which are stated in the present application. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the judgments reported in AIR 1997 Rajasthan 180 and AIR 1991 Delhi 211. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that order for production of documents is to be based on justness and relevancy of the documents. It is the arguments for the Plaintiff that the defendant has to prove his own contention taken in the written statement. The defendant cannot ask for production of documents, which are never cited in the written statement. The Plaintiff is already examined and produced documents during examination-in-chief. It is also on record that the defendant is taking time and adjournments for cross-examination of PW.1. It is stated in the application that the reference of document is made in Crl.O.P.No.22431/2011 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Therefore, the present application is filed. On perusal of the averments of the plaint and as well as the contentions taken in the written statement they do not reveal about the documents which are stated in the application. Therefore, the present application filed by the defendant seeking direction to the plaintiff to produce the documents deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, this point is answered in the Negative and I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.9 filed by the defendant U/o. 11 Rule 14 R/w section 151 C.P.C. is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.” 2. Therefore, the present application filed by the defendant seeking direction to the plaintiff to produce the documents deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, this point is answered in the Negative and I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.9 filed by the defendant U/o. 11 Rule 14 R/w section 151 C.P.C. is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants has submitted before the Court that the defendants have sought production of certain correspondences between the plaintiff and the Bankers vide application Annexure-C dated 21.07.2016 and also the Memorandum of Understanding between the parties under which the control of the business was taken over by the plaintiff/respondent and therefore, production of such documents was necessary and the documents in question were relevant to assist the Court for arriving at a proper conclusion. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent/plaintiff however supported the impugned order. 4. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court in rejecting the said application are relevant and genuine and it is for the respective parties to prove their case on the basis of their evidence and whether production of certain documents would be necessary for trial or not is in the discretion and wisdom of the Trial Court and the defendants cannot insist upon the plaintiff to produce certain documents particularly, when the trial has already commenced. 5. The present writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.