JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Defendant No. 1 is the Petitioner against an order of the trial court permitting the Plaintiff to take back some of the documents inspite objection of the Defendant that same are likely mutilated if returned. 2. On 12-4-1983, a Plaintiff field an application for taking back the documents to the field before the Wealth Tax Officer, Phulbani. The learned Advocate for the Defendant-Petitioner objected to the same alleging that purpose of taking return is with ulterior motive for manipulation. The trial court directed return of the documents on the ground that the same were taken to be produced before the Wealth Tax Officer. 3. Normally with such interlocutory orders, there is no scope interference in a revision. In this case if the trial court would have sent the documents direct to the Wealth Tax Officer being called upon by that officer, the contention of Defendant No. 1 would not have any force since in the absence of allegation of collusion against the officer concerned, a presumption to that effect cannot be drawn when the documents would be in custody of public officers. The consideration, however, would be different when the documents were being handed over to a party for being produced before the Wealth Tax Officer. Trial court ought to have taken sufficient precaution to prevent manipulation or mutilation of the documents procedure of putting signature on each page or such other steps should have been taken. The question, however, has lost importance in this case since Wealth Tax Proceeding might not have been pending new since after 1983. In case the proceeding is pending, the Plaintiff may make fresh application for return of such documents as would be necessary for reference before the Wealth Tax Officer and the Plaintiff may be permitted to take back the documents in case there is no scope for the Wealth tax Officer to call for the documents from the court and trial court would take sufficient precaution to safegurd against manipulation. 4. In the result, the civil revision is allowed. The impguned order is vacted. The Plaintiff is given liberty to file fresh application before the trial court for return of documents if they would be necessary. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed