SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiffs revision arising out of the order dated 7. 4. 1994 rejecting the application under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the termination order dated 30. 6. 1982 and the appellate order dated 6. 4. 1985 are wholly without jurisdiction and prayed for quashing of the same. During the pendency of the suit he filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code praying that the order of termonation as well as the appellate order should be produced in court by the defendant. Whenever such application is filed under this provision the trial Court after examining the merit and on being satisfied may pass an order for production of documents or may not pass. It is the discretion of the court which ofcourse has to be exercised in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Civil Procedure Code. There is no material on record to show that when the plaintiff-petitioner filed an appeal against the order of termination he made a mention that the order of termination was not supplied to him. It is also not borne out from the record that he ever made an application before the authority for supply a the copy of the order or even he made a complaint before the appellate authority regarding the same. After dismissal of the appeal, he should have made an application for supply of the copy of the appellate order, but it was not done so. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision in M/s. Shri Ganpati Re-Rolling Industries and others vs. M/s. Corporation Bank and others (1 ). The facts of that case are entirely different. In that case, the scope of Order 11, Rule 12 of the Civil Pracedure Code has not been considered. Nowhere, it has been said that while passing an order on the application under Order 11, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, the Court is bound to pass an order for production of the document. The Supreme Court, while considering the scope of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code in the case of Pandurang v. Maruti Hari Jadhav and others (2), held that the High Court cannot correct errors of fact, or of law, howsoever gross they may be. It can only interfere when the error has relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Even an erroneous decision on the question of law not related to the question of jurisdiction will not be interfered with.
(3.) THE revision petition is dismissed with cost- of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand ). .;