RAJESH BALIA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the Order dated December 9, 1993 by which the application of the petitioner Under Order 11 Rule 12 has been dismissed. The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that for the production of these very documents, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected on October 19, 1989 and the revision petition against that order was also dismissed by this Court on January 30, 1991 and this Court directed to decide the suit within three months. After rejection of the application for taking these very documents on record, the application in question was moved after about four years when the suit was ripe for decision. The trial court while taking note of the aforesaid fact has found the application not bonafide and was also of the opinion that provision of Order 11 Rule 12 are not applicable.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner urged that Order 11 Rule 12 is an independent provision than the provisions of requiring production of documents and the rejection of earlier application for production of these very documents, cannot be a ground for rejecting this application.;