IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.968 of 2006 BIBI SAKILA BANO Versus NANHI BANO & ANR ----------- 4 12.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties though a counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties is on record. In the opinion of this Court, the answer to the submission of the counsel for the petitioner as against the impugned order lies in Order XIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure which read as follows:- “9. Return of admitted documents.- (1) Any person, whether a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving back any document produced by him in the suit and placed on the record shall, unless the document is impounded under rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same,- (a) where the suit is one in which an appeal is not allowed, when the suit has been disposed of, and (b) where the suit is one in which an appeal is allowed, when the Court is satisfied that the time for preferring an appeal has elapsed and that no appeal has been preferred or, if an appeal has been preferred, when the appeal has been disposed of: [Provided that a document may be 2 returned at any time earlier than that prescribed by this rule if the person applying therefore- (a) delivers to the proper officer for being substituted for the original,- (i) in the case of a party to the suit, a certified copy, and (ii) in the case of any other person, an ordinary copy which has been examined, compared and certified in the manner mentioned in sub-rule (2) of rule 17 of Order VII, and (b) undertakes to produce the original, if required to do so:] Provided also, that no document shall be returned which, by force of the decree, has become wholly void or useless. (2) On the return of a document admitted in evidence, a receipt shall be given by the person receiving it.” From the proviso, it would be clear that such an admitted document can be returned provided a party to the suit furnishes a certified copy thereof and also an undertaking that he would produce the original if required to do so under the order of the Court. The counter affidavit of the other side however, takes a different view altogether wherein it has been stated that the impugned order in fact is under Order XIII Rule 8 of 3 the C.P.C. seeking to impound a document. From a reading of the impugned order, it appears that the document in question has been impounded. That being so, this Court would direct the petitioner to file a fresh application fulfilling the requirement of proviso to Order XIII Rule 9 of the C.P.C. and in the event such an application is filed, the same must be disposed of within a period of two weeks from the date of its filing. It is also undertaken by the counsel for the petitioner that the document on being made available to the petitioner will be returned back within a period of one week from the date of its being made available to him. Before parting with, this Court would note that the suit is of the year 1997 and therefore needs to be disposed of expeditiously. The Court below therefore, must make all its possible endeavors to dispose of the suit preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)