This is an application in revi­sion on behalf of the plaintiff against the order of learned Munsiff, Kamalpur, dated 21-12-64 by which he dismissed the suit for non production of documents in compliance with order dated 3-8-64. (2) The facts which have led up to revision petition lie in a short compass may be narrated as follows: The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.15 of 1962 in the Court of Munsiff, Kamalput, against the defendants-opposite party for khas possession of the suit land on declaration of t plaintiff's title thereon. The defendant No. 1 appeared and filed the written statement. Thereafter a local investigation was held by Survey Commissioner. After that on 3-8-64 the Court ordered the plaintiff to file the documents. The plaintiff contended that the docu­ments were filed in a Survey Appeal No. 79 of 1964 and the appellate Court required them, for writing the Judgment, therefore he cannot produce them. As the plaintiff failed to produce, them as ordered by the Court, so the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit on 21-12-64. (3) Being aggrieved by this order of learn­ed Munsiff the plaintiff has come to this Court in revision. (4) Heard the learned Advocates and perus­ed the record of the Case. (5) In this case the sole point for considera­tion is whether the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by its order dated 21-12-64 was properly passed under Or. 11 R. 21 C.P.C. The Order 11 Rule 21 is in these terms: "Where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and if a defendant to have his defence, if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the Court for an order to that effect, and an order may be made accordingly." It is clear that an order under this rule can be made only on three grounds: (1) the refusal to answer interrogatories under R. 11: (2) the refusal to make discovery of document under R. 12: and (3) the refusal to permit inspection of1 document under R. 18. It may also be pointed out that the rule enacts a highly penal provision and so the conditions pre-requisite to its application must be clearly fulfilled before a party can be punished under it. I now turn to the relevant circumstances under which the learned Munsiff dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On 24-7-63 the Court ordered the plaintiff and the defendant to file their documents by 5-8-63. On 5-8-63 the plaintiff presented an application that he could not file his documents as he could not get the copies of the relevant document from the appellate Court. The case was therefore adjourned for 20-8-63. On 20-8-63 the plaintiff again prayed for time for filing the documents. Thereafter on 19-9-63 the plaintiff filed some certified copies of the documents. He also prayed to file the remaining documents. Thereafter the case was adjourned on several dates for the survey of the land by a commissioner. Again on 27-8-64 the plaintiff prayed for time for filing the remaining documents and the case was adjourned to 17-9-64. On 17-9-64 the plaintiff filed some documents and prayed for time to file the remaining documents and the case was adjourned for 18-11-64. On 18-11-64 the plaintiff again prayed for time and the case was adjourned to 21-12-64. On 21-12-64 the plaintiff again prayed for time to file the remaining papers of jote No. 20 for local investigation. The learned Munsiff rejected the prayer and dismissed the suit on account of non-filing the documents. (6) Now, from the terms of O. 11, R, 21 set forth above, it is clear that even assuming that the plaintiff had been called upon by the Court to produce certain documents in original and that he had failed to do so as the documents were lying with the Settlement Department, it cannot be postulated that R. 21 is at all attracted into application. Refusal to produce certain docu­ments (see O- 11 R. 14) is not a lapse within the meaning of R. 21 at all and, therefore, the penal consequences prescribed thereunder could not have been imposed. There is ample autho­rity for holding that an order for production of documents under R. 14 is not one of the orders contemplated under this rule and, therefore, any disobedience thereto could not be punished under O. 11 R. 21. See Lyalpur Sugar Mills and Co. v. R.C.G. Sahai Cotton Mills and Co., AIR 1922 All. There is ample autho­rity for holding that an order for production of documents under R. 14 is not one of the orders contemplated under this rule and, therefore, any disobedience thereto could not be punished under O. 11 R. 21. See Lyalpur Sugar Mills and Co. v. R.C.G. Sahai Cotton Mills and Co., AIR 1922 All. 235; Subbayyar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1924 Mad 582; Subramania 'Ayyar v. Bomer Cooty Haji, AIR 1933 Mad $70; Manohar Das v. Darbara Singh, AIR 1933 Lah 248; Tafazzul v. Shah Mohammad, AIR ;1949 All 261; Shamalal Guruprasad v. Ganpatlal, AIR 1954 Madh B 65. These cases clearly establish the principle that the non-compliance with an order under O. 11 R. 14 does not and cannot warrant the dismissal of the suit of a plaintiff or the strik­ing off of the defence of the party which is guilty of the non-compliance of the order as such non-compliance does not fall within the ambit of the three grounds which are stated in the rule and which only would justify the striking off of the defence. It may further be-pointed out in this connection that where a party fails to produce certain documents under, O. 11 R. 14, the Court would be entitled to raise an adverse presumption against the party on account of the non-production of the docu­ments required, but that would not justify its., dismissing a suit in the case of a plaintiff or striking off of the defence in the case of a-defendant. It has to be emphasised in this con­nection, and I would do so even at the risk of repetition, that the provisions of this rule-are of a very drastic nature, and it is only in-rare cases that the penalty contemplated under the rule should be resorted to. Bearing these principles in mind, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the order passed by the Court of first instance dismissing the suit of the plaintiff was wholly without justi­fication and that in passing that order the Court exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in it in accordance with law. (7) In view of these facts, I am constrain­ed to hold that the order of learned Munsiff,-Kamalpur, dismissing the suit is erroneous. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set' aside the order dated 21-12-64. Having regard! (7) In view of these facts, I am constrain­ed to hold that the order of learned Munsiff,-Kamalpur, dismissing the suit is erroneous. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set' aside the order dated 21-12-64. Having regard! to all the circumstances of the case, I would leave the parties to bear their own costs. Revision allowed.