CRP 280/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Ms N Jahan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr AR Sikdar, learned c ounsel for the opposite party. The petitioner who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 33/09 pending in t he Court of the learned Munsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri by the present petiti on has challenged the order dated 7.6.2011 passed therein rejecting the applicat ion filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for le ave to allow him to produce the original documents copies of which were filed al ong with the plaint. The plaintiff along with the plaint filed the copies of the land revenue receipts, seven in numbers; the petition filed before the S.O., Goalpara and Bo ngaigaon; objection petition filed by the defendant and the report of the ASO, B oitamari Circle submitted to the S.O. Goalpara and Bongaigaon. The original of t he said documents, however, were not produced at the time of filing of the plain t which necessitated the filing of the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of t he CPC by the plaintiff. In the said application filed, the plaintiff in paragraph 2 thereof has cited the reason why the original documents could not be produced as those were in possession of an Advocate at Goalpara in connection with a case in the Settle ment Office being Case No. 12/06 and were filed in the said proceeding. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 CPC provides that a document which ou ght to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. The Court, therefore, can grant leave to produce the original of the documents copies of which were filed along with the plaint so that the same can be received in evidence on behalf of the party filing the application. In the instant case, as noticed above, the ground for non-production of the original documents at the time of filing of the plaint has been cited which was not dis-believed by the learned Court below while passing the order dated 7. 6.2011. The plaintiff’s case being based on those documents, the leave ought to have been granted by the learned Munsiff, when the copies of those documents wer e submitted along with the plaint and the explanation for non-submission of the originals have been provided in the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 7.6.2011 is set aside. Leave as prayed for is granted. The parties are directed to appear before the l earned Court below on 25.1.2012. The revision petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2500/ - to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The amount of cost shall be depo sited with the learned Trial Court on the date of appearance and shall be releas ed to the defendant.