Dr. Shekher Dhawan, J. - (1.) Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 4.9.2010 [Annexure P/1], whereby, Smt. Bidya Devi [Plaintiff No. 2] was ordered to produce the following documents for the purpose of cross -examination: - (i). Original sale deeds of the properties, which were jointly purchased by father of plaintiff as well as father of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 and brother of defendant No. 1, which are situated at Hisar, Gorakhpur and Mainagauri [W.B.] (ii). Income tax/Wealth Tax Returns and orders in respect of the aforesaid properties of all the plaintiffs. (iii). Purchased deeds of the properties which were owned and possesses by all the plaintiffs. (iv). Succession Certificate or letter of probate of the moveable/immovable properties left by her father. (v). Partnership deed of the business. (vi). Distribution of the properties/assets of late Sh. Bhag Chand and Sh. Sita Ram. (vii). The bank accounts of the plaintiff and the bank accounts and pass books of late Sh. Bhag Chand for the period 1990 till his death.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had stepped into the witness box for cross -examination on 14.04.2010 and on the request of respondents, cross -examination of the witness was deferred in order to delay the proceedings. Thereafter, cross -examination was deferred to 9.6.2010. On 9.6.2010, the witness had to come from Bangalore to face the cross -examination, which was conducted for hours together running into more than 10 pages and still the cross -examination remained inconclusive and same was deferred on the ground that witness was to produce some documents. The matter was adjourned to 31.7.2010 for further cross -examination. On 31.7.2010, the witness was again cross -examined for hours together and the case was posted for 9.10.2010. The petitioner is an old lady of about 61 years and had to travel from Bangalore for the purpose of cross -examination. Apart from irrelevant questions being put to her in the cross -examination, the respondents had adopted delaying tactics to harass the old lady in order to delay the proceedings unnecessarily.
(3.) On 31.7.2010, the respondent moved an application for seeking directions from the Court below to the present petitioner for producing above mentioned documents for the purpose of cross -examination. The petitioner filed her reply to the same and the Court below passed the impugned order dated 4.9.2010 [Annexure P/1]. The Court below passed the order for production of documents while ignoring the fact that the documents were not relevant for deciding the matter in dispute. Respondent No. 1 had alleged in the written statement that there was some family settlement arrived at between the parties in the year 1986 and there was some litigation in that regard. Though, respondent No. 1 must be having copy of the alleged family settlement, yet the application was moved for placing the documents on the file. The Court below failed to appreciate the list of documents as mentioned in the application and, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set -aside.;