Mc Nair, J.
1. This is an application by the plaintiffs that the defendants do produce the documents disclosed in their affidavit of documents at the office of their Solicitors in Calcutta.
2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in Calcutta on the allegation that there was a contract in Calcutta for certain goods to be supplied at Garhani and Sajhauli in the District of Arrah in Behar.
3. In their affidavit of documents the defendants disclosed certain books of account from the years 1929 up to 1934. In those books are included the roker and the ledger of the defendant firm relating to the Garhani and Sajhauli shops. They also disclosed in their affidavit other books relating to their Garhani shop which are in the Munsifs Court at Arrah as exhibit in connection with some other suit.
4. The question which has to be decided is whether the inspection should be given here or at or near the place where the books are in custody.
5. The plaintiffs rely very strongly on two letters from the defendant's solicitors. In the first of these letters they say that they cannot give inspection of the books because they are in Nagri and their clients are absent. In the second letter, about for night later, they abandon this plea and say that it is inconvenient because the books are in constant use.
6. Garhani and Sajhauli are small villages, nearly 400 miles away, and it is alleged that there is considerable difficulty in obtaining inspection there.
7. The defendants suggest that they would give inspection at Arrah, which is the headquarters of the District and where competent legal practitioners can be found.
8. I should be guided in an application of this kind by the balance of convenience. Reference has been made to a decision in Kewaldas v. Pestonji 5 B. 467 in which Sargeant, J., held on facts which are somewhat similar that the balance of convenience would undoubtedly be for inspection to be held at the 'place where the defendants carry on their business. In my view the balance of convenience in this case is that the inspection should be given at Arrah.
9. My attention has been called to the order which Sargeant, J. made with regard to costs, and I feel that in this case also it is by no means essential that if the plaintiffs are successful in their suit they should pay the whole of the costs of this inspection. However that is a matter which the learned Judge who hears the suit would be better able to decide, and in the circumstances I reserve the question of costs. Costs of this application are also reserved. Certified for Counsel.