- (1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dated 16.3.05 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.5, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 13/04, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order XI Rule 12 and 14 of CPC.
(2.) The respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and 3-original defendants seeking recovery of Rs. 1,94,076/- with interest due thereon. According to the respondent NO.1-plaintiff, the Bank had sanctioned the C.C. hypothecation limit of Rs. 35,000/- in favour of the petitioner on 3.8.89. The petitioner had requested to change the C.C. hypothecation limit, however committed defaults in repaying the loan and hence the suit was filed. The said suit has been resisted by the petitioner-defendant contending interalia that the sanctioned limit was changed from time to time and the new documents were also executed in the year 1995 and that the petitioner was not liable to pay the amount as alleged by the respondent-Bank. In the said suit, the petitioner submitted an application under Order XI Rule 12 and 14 of CPC calling upon the respondent-plaintiff to produce the documents mentioned therein on the ground that they were very relevant. The said application was resisted by the respondent-plaintiff-Bank on the ground that as per the rules and practice of the Bank, the documents were being destroyed after eight years and hence the record was not available. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide its impugned order dated 16.3.05.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Rajveer Singh for Mr. Amit Poonia for the petitioner that the documents in question called upon by the petitioner are very relevant and though the plaintiff-Bank is in possession of the said documents, the said documents are not being produced in the trial court.;