- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This petition challenges the order dated 6-5-2005 passed by the trial court and order dated 19-12-2005 passed by the revisional court. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration against the petitioners- defendants in which the plaintiff presented an application under Order XI, Rule 12 C.P.C. for discovery of certain documents. Initially the said application was dismissed vide order dated 4-4-2005 (Annexure-6) stating that the application was not supported with affidavit and the defendants petitioners had denied possession of those documents sought to be discovered. Thereafter, a second application stated to be under Section 151 C.P.C. was moved with the same prayer, which has been allowed by the impugned order. This application was supported with affidavit. The revisional court has dismissed the revision of the petitioners stating that the revisional court would not go into the factual matters and thus, the revision was not found having merits.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has tried to emphasise that the earlier order rejecting the application of the respondent-plaintiff will operate as res judi cata and has also cited the case law of All Khan Vs. Ram Prasad & another, 1981 AWC 17: (1981 All LJ 271). The second argument of the learned counsel is that the present application, which has been allowed by the impugned order, is stated to be an application under Section 151 C.P.C. whereas it should be an application under Order XI, Rule 12 C.P.C. as specific provision for granting such prayer is provided under the Code. Therefore, if the application has been given the title of being a petition under Section 151 C.P.C. the same is not to be entertained in view of case law of N.I.M.H.& Neuro Sciences Vs. C. Parameshwara, 2005 (2) AWC 1865 (SC): (AIR 2005 SC 242).;