CRP 310/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL JUDGMENT & ORDER(oral) This revision application is at the instance of the defendant. 2. The revision application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the learne d Munsiff No.2, Tinsukia in Title Suit No.45 of 2009. By this impugned order the learned Munsiff has rejected the prayer of the defendant to allow him to cross- examine the plaintiff about the averments made in the affidavit that the origina l agreement for sale has been mis-placed and not traceable. 3. Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petiti oner and Mr. P J Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the impugned order. 4. The suit relates to specific performance for sale of a plot of l and as per agreement. Before filing the written statement the defendant filed ap plication under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to direct the plaintiff to produce the original agreement. After taking various adjournmen ts the defendant filed his reply taking a plea that the original document is mis placed and in that regard an FIR has been lodged in the Police Station. Since th e plaintiff failed to produce the original agreement the defendant also field an application under Order 11 Rule 21 seeking dismissal of the suit. 5. While the aforesaid application under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC was p ending the prayer of the defendant for cross-examination of the plaintiff was re jected vide impugned order dated 23.7.2010. In the said order there was no menti on with regard to the application filed under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC and the learn ed Munsiff straightway fixed for filing of the written statement. However, by t he subsequent order dated 12.8.2010 the learned Munsiff decided to hear the pet ition of the defendant filed under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC. In this way the learned Munsiff modified the order dated 23.7.2010 to some extent. 6. Order 11 is silent about the cross-examination of a party for no t complying with any order for discovery of documents. The consequences of non p roduction of any document has been prescribed under Rule 15 and 21. Since the le arned Munsiff has already decided the application filed under Rule 21, I am of t he view that the defendant will not suffer any prejudice if his application is d ecided on merit and by way of a speaking order. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the revision application stands disposed of. Learned Munsiff is directed to decide the defendant’s application filed under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC as expeditiously as possible. 8. Registry is directed to return the LCRs with a copy of this judg ment forthwith so as to reach the trial court on or before 6.4.2011. Both the pa rties are directed to appear before the trial court on 6.4.2011.