CIVIL REVISION NO.4555 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: March 19, 2008 M/s G.T.Agencies, Chandigarh ...Petitioner Vs. M/s Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amarjit Singh Chandhiok, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Aashish Chopra, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J.(ORAL) The present revision is filed to impugn the order dated 15.6.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, whereby application filed by the respondent under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. Stands allowed, directing the petitioner for production of a document. The primary submission made by learned counsel for the CIVIL REVISION NO.4555 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: petitioner is that such an order could not have been made in a proceedings, which are pending for setting-aside an exparte order on an application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the provisions of Order 11 Rule 14 CPC to say that such an order for production of a document could only be made during the pendency of the suit. The plea is that as on date no suit is pending and it is only application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting-aside of exparte decree alone, which is pending. The order directing production of documents, as such, could not have been made. It is further submitted that the document is not in possession of the petitioner and this stand was taken before the Court. Still, the order has been passed to produce document, ignoring the stand taken by the petitioner before the Court. Mr.Chandhiok, senior counsel appearing for the respondent, however, points out that earlier the petitioner had admitted that document was in their possession. He then refers to Appendix C, Form No.5, which governs filing of an affidavit as to the documents, where it is pleaded that the document is lost etc. Paras 4 and 5 of this affidavit, as provided in Appendix C read as under:- “4. The last-mentioned documents were last in my possession or power on [state when and what has become of them and in whose possession they now are]. 5. According to the best of my knowledge, information and belief I have not now and never had, in my possession, custody or power, or in the possession, custody or CIVIL REVISION NO.4555 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: power of my pleader or agent, or in the possession, custody or power of any other person on my behalf, any account, book of account, voucher, receipt, letter, memorandum, paper or writing, or any copy of or extract from any such document, or any other document whatsoever, relating to the matters in question in this suit or any of them, or wherein any entry has been made relative to such matters or any of them, other than and except the document set forth in the said First and Second Schedule hereto.” It is submitted that the petitioner-Company can very well comply with the requirement in case, it is not in possession of the documents. On this, learned counsel for the petitioner says that he will file the requisite affidavit before the trial Court. Let the parties appear before the trial Court on 28.3.2008. The petitioner may file the requisite affidavit. Thereafter, the trial Court may pass any appropriate order. The present revision is accordingly disposed of. March 19, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE