JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Plaintiff, opposite party in this revision, filed Money Suit No. 7 of 1977 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna. The Defendant appeared in suit on 20-12-1917 and prayed for time to file written statement. On 12-1-1978 the Defendant again prayed for time to file written statement on the ground that he had served notice under Order 11, Rule 16, CPC on the Plaintiff for production of the documents referred to and relied on by the Plaintiff in the plaint for inspection by the Defendant. On that ground time for filing written statement was granted till 14-2-1978. As the Plaintiff had not produced the documents till then the Court on 27-1-1978 ordered that the Plaintiff would not be at liberty to put those documents in evidence. Thereafter the Defendant again moved the Court by filing a petition under Order 11, Rule 18, CPC to direct the Plaintiff to produce the documents for inspection by the Defendant or to pass orders under the said rule. In that petition it was mentioned that it was risky and not possible on the part of the Defendant to file his written statement in the suit without inspecting the aforesaid documents. The Plaintiff on that day filed a petition for time to enable him to file those documents. The Court accordingly adjourned the case to 21-2-1978 specifically directing the Plaintiff to produce the documents in Court so that the Defendant might inspect those documents on that date. But on 21-2-1978 the Plaintiff did not produce the documents nor did he state any reason for not producing the same. The Court, however, merely passed the order that the Plaintiff would not be at liberty to use the documents listed in the plaint in the suit, and adjourned the suit to 3-3-1978 for filing written statement. On that date the Defendant filed the petition under Order 11, Rule 21, Code of Civil Procedure. As a copy of the said petition had not been served on the Plaintiff the case was adjourned to 6-3-1978 the Plaintiff filed "some documents", and on that ground, the Court did not exercise its power under Order 11, Rule 21, CPC and directed the Defendant to file his written statement by 20-3-1978. This revision has been filed against the said order dated 6-3-1978. 2. This revision has been filed against the said order dated 6-3-1978. 2. The Defendant, as is evident from the narration of facts, was all through insisting on the production of the documents which are required to be produced under Rule 14 of Order 7, CPC and as per the notice under Rule 16 of Order 11, Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also has directed production of the said documents in Court for the inspection of the Defendant. The Plaintiff neither at the time of filing the plaint nor at any subsequent stage has stated as to under what circumstances he was not able to produce the documents at the proper time or when directed to be produced by the Court. "Some documents" no doubt, were filed on the date on which the impugned order was passed. But the Court does not say that by the production of those documents there has been sufficient compliance of the above rules or the Court's above mentioned order. Without examining that aspect of the matter, the Court was not justified in calling upon the Defendant to file his written statement. The provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 and Order 11, Rules 15, 16 and other rules connected therewith are not empty formalities. They are based on wholesome reasons and principles and trial Courts should not treat non-compliance of the said provisions in a light-hearted manner, more so when compliance of the same is insisted by the Defendant. In a matter of this nature, after passing an order for the production of the documents and after receiving the petition under Rule 21 of Order 11, Code of Civil Procedure, the Court should have insisted on the production of all the documents referred to and relied on by the Plaintiff in the plaint, or should have passed an order under Rule 21 of Order 11, Code of Civil Procedure. On the above consideration the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand, and is hereby set aside. 3. Mr. Bohidar, the learned Counsel for the opposite party, states that all the remaining documents referred to and relied on in the plaint shall be filed by the Plaintiff in the Court below within a month from today. If the said documents or certified copies thereof are filed within a month from today the Defendant shall file his written statement within a month thereafter. If the said documents or certified copies thereof are filed within a month from today the Defendant shall file his written statement within a month thereafter. In case the said documents are not filed, the Court shall proceed to pass necessary orders on the petition under Rule 21 of Order 11, CPC filed by the Defendant, and shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law. 4. The revision accordingly is allowed. But in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. The L.C.R. be sent back immediately. Final Result : Allowed