1. ' NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, J.--- This application under Order XI, Rule 14 read with section 151, C.P.C.
2. Has been moved on behalf of the plaintiff with a prayer to direct the defendants to produce on oath the documents, mentioned in detail in such application. This application has been controverted by the defendants through counter-affidavit.
3. ' The learned counsel for the plaintiff, relying upon the case of Choudhri Mehmood Ahmed and others, v. Government of Punjab and others (1988 CLC 1532, relevant page 1536), has contended that the documents sought to be produced in Court are in possession of the defendants and these documents are very much relevant to the questions involved in the Issues Nos.3, 7, 11, 12 and 13 already framed by this Court by consent of both parties. He further contends that in order to adjudicate the case on merits, if these documents are allowed to be produced by defendant party, no prejudice will be caused to them in any way.
4. ' On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants, relying upon the case of Muhammad Arif v. Muhammad Anwar (2004 M LD 1127, relevant para-4 at page 1129), contends that all the documents are admittedly in existence except the alleged agreement as shown at para No,1 of this application, but the same are not relating to the questions involved in this case and as such the defendants are not liable to produce the same in Court, specially when the evidence of the plaintiff is already recorded by the learned Commissioner who was appointed by this Court for recording the evidence and now the defendants have to adduce their evidence, during which they are likely to produce the minutes of meeting of Board of Directors as mentioned in para No,5 of the application, while the remaining documents are not necessary to be produced being not disputed, therefore the present application deserves no merits.
5. ' I have considered the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused relevant record. The relevant provision i.e. Rule 14 of Order XI, C.P.C. Very clearly provides that the Court, at any time during pendency of the Suit, may order the production of the documents in possession or power of any party, if such documents are relating to the matter in question.
6. Accordingly, the documents sought to be produced in this case, appear to have relevancy to the points in question, on which the issues are already framed by this court. Therefore, there appears no cogent reason to reject the prayer of the plaintiff, specially when no prejudice would be caused to the defendant party on production of the documents in question together with the affidavit on oath as the possession of these documents, except one, is also not denied by the defendant party.
7. ' In the circumstances, the above application is hereby allowed with no order as to costs.
8. Accordingly, the defendant party is directed to produce all documents, except the alleged agreement, together with an affidavit on the oath, on next date of hearing.