IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.184 of 2007 MD.ZAFAR EQBAL Versus SMT.RITA KESHARI & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : - Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha For the opposite party No.2 :- Mr. R.K. Sinha ******* 3 16.12.2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application (I.A. No. 468 of 2007), the delay in filing of this Civil Revision application is hereby condoned. Heard counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for directing the defendant-opposite parties to produce the documents as referred to in the written statement, cannot be sustained inasmuch as, the same would run counter to the spirit of Order VIII Rule 1(A) read with Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no doubt that the documents which have been demanded by the plaintiff-petitioner are clearly referable to the pleadings made in the written statement and as such in terms of the amendment made in the Code of Civil Procedure their production is necessary. Counsels for both the sides are however, not sure as to whether the issues have been framed in the suit or - 2 - not. From the last portion of the impugned order however, it appears that the plaintiff-petitioner has been called upon to adduce evidence. In that view of the matter, it would be necessary for the plaintiff-petitioner to know as to what is the issue and what documents are being relied as referred to in the written statement. Counsel for the defendant-opposite party No.2, however, has submitted that the only difficulty for the defendant-opposite party No.2 in producing the document, is that though the present suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner is based on an oral agreement for sale and therefore, she apprehends that the moment such documents as referred to in the written statement are produced, it will enable the plaintiff-petitioner either to change or modify his case. This Court for examining the bonafide of the said apprehension has looked into the pleadings in the plaint and written statement and has found that whereas the definite case of the plaintiff- petitiner is that an oral agreement for sale was made in the month of June 2002, the definite case of the defendant-opposite party No.2 is that such agreement for sale was executed between her and the opposite party No.1 on 4.4.2002. That being so, the apprehension of the - 3 - defendant-opposite party No.2 against the plaintiff’s conduct seems to be also misconceived but for the sake of clarity, the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has himself made a statement before the Court that whatever stand has been taken by the plaintiff-petitioner in the plaint will not be changed even after production of the document by any of the defendant as referred to and relied in the written statement. In view of the aforementioned definite undertaking conveyed by the counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner the counsel for the defendant-opposite party No.2 has agreed to produce the documents as referred to and relied in the written statement for perusal of the Court and also enabling the plaintiff-petitioner to take a copy thereof. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the defendant-opposite parties to produce the document in Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order whereafter the plaintiff-petitioner would proceed to adduce their evidence. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is allowed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)