- (1.) The order of the trial Court rejecting the production of documents mentioned in sub-paras (e), (f) and (g) does not convey any sense, nor reasons have been given for the same. The Court below, about the documents mentioned in sub-para (f) and (g) mentioned that they are not relevant for the controversy in issue whereas the counsel for the bank says that the documents are with the defendant. The stand taken before this Court and the finding of the Court below are contrary to the reply of the bank. Similarly, the production of document mentioned in part of sub-para (d) has been declined.
(2.) Accordingly, I allow this revision and set aside the order of the Court below regarding the production of documents mentioned in sub-para (d), (e), (f), and (g) with a direction to it to re-decide the matter by passing a speaking order giving reasons.
(3.) The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 23 7.1990. Ordered accordingly.;