THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 905 of 2007 Date of order: 19.11.2010 Between: M. Sunneebee …Petitioner and Balaga Ganapathi Patnaik and another ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 905 of 2007 ORDER: CRPMP No. 6379 of 2010 is filed seeking restoration of the revision which was dismissed in default on 26.8.2010. Other side has not opposed. It is accordingly ordered. Heard both sides. The plaintiff in a suit for injunction had filed an application being IA No. 1269 of 2006 seeking leave of the Court below under Order VII, Rule 14 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code to permit him to produce two documents viz., registration extract of sale deed dated 16.7.2002 and certified copy of another registered sale deed dated 10.3.2007 which could not be produced along with the plaint. On contest, the said application was rejected by the court below and questioning the said order, this revision petition is preferred. This Court granted stay of all further proceedings, while admitting the revision on 8.3.2007. It is the specific case of the petitioner as evident from the affidavit filed along with the petition that the aforesaid two documents which are now produced were not available at the time of filing of the suit as they were given for the purpose of security. This application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that these documents are created one for the purpose of filing the petition and that there was no mention of these documents in the plaint. Under the impugned order, the court below rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that there are no details mentioned by the petitioner as to where these documents were kept for security. It is evident from the petition and the counter filed before the court below that the petitioner’s specific averment in the affidavit was not controverted specifically by the respondent. The petitioner has specifically stated that he could not file the documents as they were given for security purpose and in the absence of any serious dispute on that allegation by the respondent, there was no reason given by the court below to doubt the said statement of the petitioner. In any case, both the documents are registered documents and mere reception of these documents would not dispense with their proof and relevancy which, in any case, the petitioner has to establish during the trial. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order and direct the lower court to permit the petitioner to file these two documents and proceed with the trial of suit expeditiously. As the suit is of the year 2004, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit at least before Summer Vacation, 2011. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 19.11.2010 KR