(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner Bank under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 24th May, 2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 711 of 1995 by virtue of which the respondent/defendant 's application under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as "CPC ") had been allowed and the petitioner was directed to produce on record certain documents.
(2.) IT is pertinent to mention that the respondents had filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC for summoning the following documents in original:-
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the documents asked for by the respondent/defendant are irrelevant and unconnected to the controversy in the present suit. He has further drawn my attention to the equitable mortgage document executed by the respondent/defendant. Under the description of "Title Deed ", a Partition/ Division Deed executed on 13th March, 1992 between the respondent/defendant and his brother is referred to. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn my attention to another suit filed by the petitioner Bank against the respondent/defendant in the case of M/s Durga Industries where the same mortgage document is referred to and it has clearly been stated in that plaint that the document deposited to create the mortgage, was a Partition/Division Deed accompanied by a photocopy of the Sale Deed. He has further pointed out that in the written statement filed by the respondent/defendant in the case of M/s Durga Industries, it has been admitted by the said defendant that he had mortgaged his share of the property by submitting copies of the Partition Deed of the property along with site plan, valuation report of the property etc. Consequently, learned counsel for the petitioner Bank submitted that where was the question of respondent/defendant now asking for production of the original Sale Deed.