ORDER : Petitioners being the defendants in a Declaration Suit in O.S.No.5506/2017 are at the door steps of the writ Court for assailing the order dated 20.01.2020, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the learned XVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru having favoured respondent-plaintiffs’ application in I.A.No.3 filed under Order XVI Rule 1 r/w Sec.151 of CPC, 1908 has directed to furnish the ‘withheld documents’; the learned Judge has put the petitioners to the caveat/warning that, should they fail to comply with the direction, an adverse inference shall be drawn against 5th defendant who happens to be the 5th petitioner herein. 2. After service of notice respondent plaintiff nos.1 & 2 have entered appearance through their counsel; however notice to other two respondents is dispensed with. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents resists the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it is structured 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) Which of the two Trusts having same nomenclature, is genuine and valid, happens to be the fulcrum of the suit; in another pending suit in O.S.No.1784/2012, there was an order dated 06.11.2015 (Annexure-R-12 to the S.O.); respondents were directed to handover the subject documents along with other to the petitioners and the challenge thereto in W.P.No.56194/2015 (GM-CPC) was negatived by a coordinate Judge of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2016, a marginal variation thereof in Review Petition No.33/2017 disposed off on 18.02.2019, not being much relevant; pursuant to the order of the Court below, the respondents herein had handed the documents to the petitioners in terms of Charge List dated 31.10.2014 in the presence of Deputy Registrar of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru and the entire exercise was videographed; therefore the contention that the petitioners do not have with them some of these documents, does not avail to them. (b) The dispute of the kind involved in the suit needs the examination of all the documents enlisted in the Charge List and accordingly learned Judge of the Court below in his discretion has issued a direction to the petitioners to produce the same; such a discretionary order is not susceptible to a deeper examination on the grounds urged by the petitioners for its invalidation at the hands of the writ Court which exercises a limited supervisory jurisdiction that is constitutionally vested in it, vide SADHANA LODH & ANOTHER VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., (2003) 3 SCC 524 , as rightly contended by learned Sr. Advocate Mr.S.S.Naganand. (c) The last contention vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents had not handed the subject documents and that the Charge List does not reflect the correct position cannot be countenanced; the Constitution of India vide Article 261(1) mandates that full faith and credit shall be given inter alia to records and judicial proceedings; in this Article, underlies a public policy of pivotal importance required for administration of justice; if the Charge List did not reflect the true position, nothing prevented the petitioners from pointing out the same to the Court concerned, years ago; no explanation is offered for not doing it nor there is any reason for this Court to entertain such a contention, especially at this length of time; it has been a long settled position of law that a party not complying with a direction for production of documents that are in his custody is liable to suffer an adverse inference, as rightly warned by the learned judge of the Court below; there may be other options to the Courts to enforce production of such documents, is beside the point. In the above circumstances, this writ petition being thoroughly devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected, and accordingly, it is, costs having been made easy. There was already a direction to the Court below made in W.P.No.28427/2019 (GM-CPC) disposed off on 08.11.2019 for accomplishing the suit proceedings within an outer limit of nine months; the direction is reiterated that the learned judge of the Court below shall try & dispose of the subject suit before the onset of Summer Vacation – 2021 and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.