saving costs. On that premise, the Court has to record findings in respect of satisfaction and the possession of the document with the defendant. It appears from the record that the trial Court has not acted in a judicious manner to answer the compliance of Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 CPC while deciding the application in question. 11. In Sharvan Kumar Vs. Sumeet Kumar Garg, 2002(3) PLR 666, it was held that nature of provision itself does not leave any room to refuse such a request. The only exception that can be made is with regard to privilege document under Sections 122, 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. This rule is entirely different to Order 11 Rule 12 CPC which is confined to discovery of document. Under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, all the documents are required to be produced as long as they are found to be relevant. Under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC, party can be asked to make discovery on oath, of document which is in his possession or power. If such discovery is found to be unnecessary, then such a prayer can be rejected on the ground that it is not necessary for disposing of the suit.”
