IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1298 of 2008 RITESH KUMAR Versus RAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----------- 2 18.8.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order whereby and whereunder the plaintiff, petitioner has been directed to produce the original document. It has to be noted that such order came to be passed on an application filed by the defendant, opposite party dated 25.6.2008 complaining that the document on which the petitioner, plaintiff had sued and/or relied was not filed by him at the time of the presentation of the plaint. It is only when the defendant, opposite party had filed such application on 25.6.2008 that the plaintiff woke up and had filed an application on 5.8.2008 that the Court should allow the prayer of the plaintiff, petitioner for directing the Indian Oil Corporation to produce the original copy of the agreement dated 22.12.2005 as the same is in the custody of Indian Oil Corporation. The Court below infact having examined the scope of Order VII Rule 14 has in fact correctly gone to hold that such prayer of the plaintiff actually amounted to playing fraud upon the power of the Court inasmuch as the plaintiff, petitioner had initially made the Court to believe for last one year that the document on which he had sued namely the agreement dated 22.12.2005 was already produced by him 2 in original. Counsel for the petitioner however has submitted that it was the duty of the Court to get the document by way of additional evidence and for this purpose, he has placed relied on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sarbanand Paswan Vs. Mahendra Prasad Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1999 (Patna) 108. In the opinion of the court the reliance placed of the aforementioned judgment of Sarbanand Paswan (supra) is wholly misconceived in as much the aforesaid case does not lay down a law that a document on which plaintiff sued is to be arranged and obtained by the court. Infact the duty enjoined on the plaintiff at the time of institution of a suit by filing the document with the plaint cannot be equated with the scope of production of an evidence which has already been referred to in the plaint or pleadings. Here is a case where the suit was filed for specific performance of contract with regard to the agreement dated 22.12.2005 and they were never produced nor there was an explanation in terms of Order VII Rule 14 (2). It is only when the defendant, opposite party had taken a specific objection with regard to the continuance of the suit on account of non-compliance of the provision of Order VII, Rule 14 the petitioner came with an ingenious plea by filing of an application on 10th July, 2008 that Indian Oil Corporation should be directed to produce the same. In such a situation, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order because the plaintiff, petitioner had never discharged his onus which 3 he ought to have at the time of filing of the suit itself. The Court is not supposed to become a facilitator for producing the original document on which a plaintiff, petitioner has sued. The case of the plaintiff, petitioner has to stand on its own legs and the plaintiff cannot be dependant on the support of the Court for getting a document on which he has filed the suit. That being the position in law, this Court would not interfere with the impugned order and accordingly would hold the Civil Revision Application is wholly misconceived and must be and is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to defendant opposite party no. 1 within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this court in the court below. At this stage, Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the time granted by the Court below in the impugned order for producing the original copy of the agreement to the petitioner has already expired on 25.7.2008 and as he should be given three months time to produce the copy of the original agreement dated 22.12.2005. Considering the fact that the order was passed by the court below on 22.7.2008, this Court would grant time to the petitioner till 22nd October, 2008 to do so, failing which the Court below would be at liberty in drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)