* 1 * W.P.- 6679.2004 30.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6679 OF 2004 Prakash Madhukar Upadhye and Ors. .... Petitioners V/S. Prakash Rangnath Pawar .... Respondent * * * * * * Mr. P.S. Dani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.A. Sathaye i/by. Mr. M.M. Sathaye , Advocate for the respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 30 September, 2010. P.C. : 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 15th June, 2004 passed * 2 * W.P.- 6679.2004 30.9.2010 by the court of IInd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nashik rejecting the application at Exhibit-23 filed by the petitioners. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners who are the landlords have filed Regular Civil Suit No.114 of 2003 for possession of demised premises from the respondent on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. The suit was filed on 26th February, 2003. On 13th April 2004 the petitioners filed, alongwith the affidavit of examination-in-chief, an application under Order 7 Rule 14 sub-rule (3) Civil Procedure Code, for leave of the court to produce the documents, copies of which had not been filed at the time of filing of the suit. The application was opposed by the respondent contending that the amended Civil Procedure Code requires that all the documents relied upon by the plaintiff in his possession, must be produced at the time of presentment of the plaint itself, and that Civil Procedure Code does not provide for production of documents at a subsequent stage. The trial court rejected the application relying upon the provision of Order 13 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code. 3. Mr. Dani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, * 3 * W.P.- 6679.2004 30.9.2010 submits that, the provision of Order 7 Rule 14 sub-rule 3 caters precisely to the situation where a plaintiff for some reason is unable to produce documents at the time of presentment of the plaint. The provision allows the plaintiff to produce documents but only on obtaining leave of the court. A similar opportunity is afforded to a defendant to the suit by Order 8 Rule 1-A Civil Procedure Code. Thus there is no absolute bar for production of documents by either side at a stage subsequent to presentment of the plaint or the written statement. 4. The provision of Order 13 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, placing reliance upon which the learned trial judge rejected the application reads as follows :- “O.13 R.1- Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues -(1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed alongwith plain or written statement. (2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced : Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs. (3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents- * 4 * W.P.- 6679.2004 30.9.2010 (a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” . This provision only regulates production of originals of the documents where only copies have been filed alongwith the plaint or written statement. It does not relate to production of the documents that were not at all produced at the time of presentment of the plaint. Therefore, the reliance upon this provision by the learned trial judge was completely misplaced. Besides the nature of the documents which are sought to be produced vide Exhibit-23 is also required to be looked into. The documents consist of a power of attorney given by the plaintiff to one Madhukar Gopal Upadhye, certified copies of corporation record of revision registers, certified copies of the orders in Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1989 and Civil Appeal No.336 of 1997, School Leaving Certificate of the daughter of the petitioner and certified copy of the city survey record. Hardly any proof will be required for most of these documents. In the circumstances, * 5 * W.P.- 6679.2004 30.9.2010 the impugned order dated 15th June, 2004 passed by the court of IInd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nashik cannot be sustained. The same is required to be set aside. The petition is disposed off by making the rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]