JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. The plaintiffs brought a claim in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, praying that certain money due to them might be awarded and that if the decree were not satisfied within the period fixed by the court, then certain property should be brought to sale and the decree satisfied from the proceeds. 2. The claim of the plaintiffs is based upon certain mortgage deeds. When they filed their plaint they did not attach to it the original mortgage deeds, they gave copies and as a reason for giving copies they say in the 4th paragraph of their plaint, “the copies of the documents sued on are filed because the original documents sued on were not given to the plaintiffs at the time of partition as they got mixed up with other papers relating to the Bhikanpur estate.” 3. The original mortgage deeds were tendered to the court on the 28th March, 1911, the same day on which the defendants filed their written statement. That the defendants had notice of these documents is abundantly evident from the written statement, for they set out in that that the plaintiffs are not competent to sue on the basis of the copies of these documents. 4. Issues were struck on the nth of May and in one of these issues we find the following, i.e., “How does the fact that the plaintiffs originally filed copies of the bonds along with the plaint affect the claim?” 5. The court of first instance, in dealing with the issue, says that “the plaintiffs filed copies of the bonds in suit with the plaint and alleged that the original deeds have been mislaid. There is no evidence to prove that the original bonds were actually mislaid. The plaintiffs filed the original bonds on the 28th March, 1911, on the day the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had to appear in court to file their written statement.” 6. We call attention to this because we wish to make it perfectly clear that there has been no attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to surprise the defendants. 7. The lower appellate court found on the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, but it went on to consider the question whether the failure to produce the deeds when the suit was instituted was fatal to the claim of the plaintiffs. 7. The lower appellate court found on the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, but it went on to consider the question whether the failure to produce the deeds when the suit was instituted was fatal to the claim of the plaintiffs. After discussing the provisions of Order 7, Rule 18, it arrived at the conclusion that the mortgage-deeds were not to be received in evidence— it held that they must be rejected—with the result that there would be no admissible evidence of the mortgages and the suit must fail. 8. The lower appellate court accordingly dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree of the court of first instance. 9. The plaintiffs come before us in appeal from that decree ant contend that the lower appellate court was wrong in rejecting the deeds and dismissing the suit upon that ground. The court of first instance having admitted the bonds in suit the lower appellate court could not reverse that order of admission. 10. We so far agree with the lower appellate court as to insist upon courts following the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure more carefully than they often do with regard to the admission and proof of documents tendered before them in evidence. A defendant in a case has as much right to a copy of a document sued on as he has to the copy of the plaint—both documents are equally important to him and it is the bounden duty of the court to see that the defendant does get copies of the documents which form the basis of a suit. For this reason it is necessary that those documents should be filed with the plaint and not admitted afterwards, unless strong and satisfactory reasons are given to a court for their non-production at the time when the suit was instituted. 11. We do not propose to go into the question why the original documents were not filed with the plaint in the present case. The plaintiffs were at considerable pains to let the defendants know the nature and scope of the documents and they tendered the originals in ample time for the defendants to examine and consider them. The defendants have in no way been surprised by their being filed late. 12. The plaintiffs were at considerable pains to let the defendants know the nature and scope of the documents and they tendered the originals in ample time for the defendants to examine and consider them. The defendants have in no way been surprised by their being filed late. 12. It appears that the court of first instance, as soon as the documents were filed, did pass orders that they should be shown to the defendants. It is true that there is no written order of the court as there ought to be, but the act of the court in receiving the documents and in calling the attention of the other side to them and in the end admitting them in evidence, may fairly be considered leave granted to the documents being placed on the record. 13. We are, therefore, unable to follow the lower appellate court in the view it took. 14. We understand there are still matters which call for decision. 15. We allow the appeal and remand the case to the lower appellate court with instructions to place the appeal on the file of pending appeals and to dispose of it according to law. Our attention has just now been called by the learned Vakil who appears for the respondents to the fact that the plaintiffs here have valued their appeal at Rs. 1,500. The lower appellate court will take this matter into consideration. 16. The costs will follow the result of the appeal.