JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This revision has been filed against an order dated 6-3-1976 passed by the Court below refusing to grant time to the Defendant to file his written statement, and setting him exparte on that date. 2. Mr. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that as the Plaintiff did not file the relevant documents, which are referred to in the plaint till the date on which the impugned order was passed, and the Defendant all through insisted that the Plaintiff should be made to file the said documents in Court so that the Defendant could inspect the same before filing his written statement, the Court below acted illegally in passing the impugned order on 6-3-1978. The Defendant entered appearance in the suit on 2-6-1977. Thereafter, before filing his written statement he on 21-9-1977 filed an application under Order 11, Rule 16, CPC for directing the Plaintiff to file the relevant documents, pertaining to the Plaintiff's claim and referred in the plaint, for the Defendant's inspection. On that day the Court directed the Plaintiff to produce those documents. On 28-9-1977; 3-10-1977, 5-10-1977 and 14-10-1977 the Plaintiff asked for time to produce the same. But on 4-11-1977 the Plaintiff filed a petition stating therein that the said documents had been filed in G.R. Case No. 171/74, and that an appeal arising out of that case was pending in the High Court. On 16-12-1977 the Defendant filed a petition stating therein that notice under Order 11, Rule 16 CPC was served on the Plaintiff for the production of the aforesaid documents. In spite of the said notice the said documents were not produced by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court on 20-1-1978 ordered that the Plaintiff would not thereafter have 'the liberty' to put such documents into evidence. Again, the Defendant filed another application on 31-1-1978 for production of the documents by the Plaintiff. On that the Court on 1-2-1978 merely observed that as the Plaintiff did not file the documents in spite of the previous orders of the Court, be would not have 'the liberty' to put the documents into evidence. So saying it did not pass any other order or give any further direction to the Plaintiff on the aforesaid petition of the Defendant. So saying it did not pass any other order or give any further direction to the Plaintiff on the aforesaid petition of the Defendant. On 14-2-1978 again the Defendant filed a petition stating that without the said documents it would be risky and not possible on his part to file his written statement in the suit. On that date the advocate for the Plaintiff again filed a petition informing the Court that the said documents were in the High Court in the appeal arising out of the G.R. case and so it was no t possible on his part to produce the documents at that stage. The affidavit to that effect was filed on 22-2-1978. On 6-3-1978 the Defendant filed a petition with a prayer that the Plaintiff be directed to produce the aforesaid documents and the Defendant be allowed time to peruse those documents and to file his written statement thereafter in the suit. On that date the Court passed the impugned order without granting any time to the Defendant and without passing any order for the production of the documents or certified or verified copy thereof, or an order under Rule 21 of Order 11, CPC or an order to the effect that such an order shall be passed or shall become effective on a particular date on the failure of the production of the said documents. Admittedly, the documents which were required by the Defendant to be produced by the Plaintiff have all been referred to in the plaint in some way or the other. Copies of the said documents or a detailed list thereof have not been filed along with the plaint, nor proper description or particulars of the same have been furnished in or along with the plaint. No reasons for not filing the said documents along with the plaint have been stated either in the plaint or by a separate petition or affidavit filed with the plaint. At that time or on the four subsequent dates on which adjournments were taken for production of the document~ it was not stated that the said documents were not in the possession or power of the Plaintiff. At that time or on the four subsequent dates on which adjournments were taken for production of the document~ it was not stated that the said documents were not in the possession or power of the Plaintiff. If the documents were actually attached to any judicial record at the time of the filing of the plaint, then that fact could have been stated-at that stage or certified copies of the said documents should have been obtained and filed in the Court at the time when their production was insisted or ordered by the Court At least, a list of the said documents with dates, proper description and particulars could have been easily furnished enabling the Defendant to have an idea of the said documents before he was called upon to file his written statement in the suit. Nothing was done to that effect. For the non-compliance of the order for discovery of the said documents the Court could also have dismissed the suit in accordance with the provision or Order 11, Rule 21. Code of Civil Procedure. However, as the Defendant did not make any application to that effect, the Court possibly did not proceed to pass any orders under the said. Rule. In the facts and circumstances of this case I am satisfied that the Court was not justified in passing the impugned order setting the Defendant exparte in this case without compelling the production of the said documents or copies or list, description or particulars thereof and without passing order under Order 11, Rule 21, Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Mr. Bohidar, the learned Counsel for the opposite party, states that in the meantime certified copies of all the documents have been obtained by him and he has sent the same to the Plaintiff to be filed in the trial Court as soon as possible. The trial Court records are said to be in this Court, and Mr. Bohidar says that as soon as the trial Court records are received by that Court, the opposite party shall file certified copies of the said documents in that Court. In view of all that has been stated above, the impugned order setting the Defendant ex parte in the suit is set aside. Mr. Bohidar says that as soon as the trial Court records are received by that Court, the opposite party shall file certified copies of the said documents in that Court. In view of all that has been stated above, the impugned order setting the Defendant ex parte in the suit is set aside. Mr. Bohidar undertakes that he will instruct his client, the opposite party in this revision, to file the certified copies of the said documents in the Court below within 15 days from today with notice to the Defendant. If the said documents are filed as per the above undertaking, the Defendant shall file his written statement in the suit within 3 weeks thereafter. No further time for the filing of the said documents or for the filing of the written statement shall be allowed. If the documents and the written statement are filed as stated above, the Court shall proceed to expeditiously dispose of the suit 10 accordance with law. If the certified copies of the documents referred to above are not filed within the time specified above, the Court shall proceed under Rule 21 of Order 11, CPC if moved by the Defendant. 4. The revision is accordingly allowed. No. costs. The L.C.R. be sent back immediately. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed