1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order made under Order XI, Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code, should not be set aside on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction. The suit in which it was made is one for accounts and for other reliefs, brought by certain parties against the mutwallis of a mosque. The order which has been made substantially is that the defendants should produce certain accounts, that is to say, certain documents, containing the accounts of the mosque for a certain period. It was objected, in the first place, that this order should not be made at the present stage of the proceedings because it still remained to be decided in the case whether the' present plaintiffs were persons who were entitled to bring this action and whether the endowment is dedicated as a public or a private one. This matter has been dealt with on a preliminary question, namely, whether a Receiver should be appointed or not and in the decision of that matter, the Court came to the conclusion that these persons were prima facie entitled to bring this suit and that the dedication was a public one. So far, therefore, as the Rule was granted on these questions, we think that the petition was well founded.
2. It is then argued that this relief is premature and that accounts cannot be called for until the final decision of the case. This, of course, is perfectly true, and so far as the order in this case calls for accounts, which it does to some extent, it appears that it is bad. All that the rule does is to order the production of certain documents. It is to be observed that it is not an order for the inspection of these documents by the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs cannot have inspection without an order under Rule 18, Order XI, and when an application is made for inspection under that rule, it will be open to the defendants to urge again as they have urged here that the time has not yet come for that order to be made. Bat the present order relates only to the production of the documents. It is not for us, sitting in revision, to say whether, on the facts of the case, that order was an order which ought to have been made or not; but there can be no doubt that the lower Court had jurisdiction to make it except in so far as it called upon the defendants to show in detail the income of the estate, and how it was realised and to show in detail the extent of the income and how it was spent.
3. The result is that we make the Rule absolute as to this part of the order, but as to the production of the documents, the order of the Court below will stand. Each party will bear its own costs of this Rule.
4. Let the record be sent down to the lower Court at once.