JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - This revision is directed against an order dated March 15, 1986 by which the trial Judge (IV Addl. District Judge, Allahabad) required the applicant, who is defendant in the suit, to file her written statement. On May 16, 1986 this Court stayed further proceedings in the suit and directed the applicant to serve the plaintiff, namely, the husband who is impleaded as the sole-opposite party in the Revision. Some affidavits were exchanged between the parties after this order and the matter was initially heard on July 18, 1986. The trial Judge was directed to dispose of the prayer made on behalf of the defendant-applicant for a direction being given to the husband to produce certain documents in regard to which no specific order was found to have been passed by the learned Judge. The matter was heard by the trial Judge in pursuance of the order of this Court and an order recorded on July 26, 1986 That order has also been brought on this record of the present Revision along with an application made on behalf of the defendant-applicant seeking amendment in the memorandum of Revision, by being permitted to urge some further grounds. 2. I have heard Miss. Bharti Sapru for the applicant and Sri Yatindra Singh plaintiff-opposite party. 3. The limited controversy which deserves attention at the present stage is whether the defendant be required to file her written statement without a direction being given to the plaintiff-opposite party to produce certain documents said to be in his possession. A copy of the application under Order l l rules 12 and 14, C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. made on behalf of the applicant before the trial Judge is annexure I to the amendment application. In paragraph 6 of this application are mentioned the documents which the applicant desired to be produced before she was required to put in her written statement. The trial Judge has dealt with these documents in his order dated July 26, 1986. He has observed that the production of these documents is not necessary for purposes of the filing of the written statement by the defendant. 4. The view taken by the trial Judge seems to be correct. The documents mentioned at SI. Nos. (i) to (iv) in paragraph 6 of the application are these : (i) All the passports issued to the petitioner. 4. The view taken by the trial Judge seems to be correct. The documents mentioned at SI. Nos. (i) to (iv) in paragraph 6 of the application are these : (i) All the passports issued to the petitioner. Since 1957 whether issued by the Government of India or by any other country. (ii) The certificate issued by the Foreign Office, United Kingdom dated December 6. 1961 in consequence of the plaintiff's application dated November 22, 1961 on Form RI under the British Nationality Act, 1948, Section (1). (iii) The certificate issued by the Commission of European communities, Brussels Belgium dated June 28. 1981 declaring the petitioner's nationality and domicile. (iv) Proceedings of the open court sitting in chambers of May 4, 1984. No. 30327 of the cause list of the Vice-President of the Court of First Instance, sitting at Brussels, Belgium. 5. They all relate to the plea, as urged by Miss. Bharti Sapru, about the court at Allahabad having no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the suit. The plea that the court at Allahabad has no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit can be taken in the written statement, which the defendant-applicant has yet to file, without any direction to the plaintiff to produce these documents, The necessity of these documents may arise at the stage when the question of jurisdiction is tried by the court below. 6. Some observations are contained in the order of the trial Judge dated 26 July 1986 to the effect that the court at Allahabad has jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the trial of the suit. These observations were presumably made on the basis of the submission made before the trial Judge on behalf of the present applicant that the court has no jurisdiction. These observations were really not necessary for the disposal of the application for a direction to produce the documents made by the defendant-applicant. The question whether the court at Allahabad has jurisdiction or not can be raised in the written statement and the trial Judge would, on the pleadings of the parties, frame the necessary issues about it and determine the question in accordance with law. 7. Miss Sapru also urged, with reference to some provisions of the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act, that the court at Allahabad could not entertain the suit to try it. 7. Miss Sapru also urged, with reference to some provisions of the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act, that the court at Allahabad could not entertain the suit to try it. It is not necessary for me to notice the submission in detail or express any opinion thereon. The question can be appropriately raised and thereafter adjudicated upon by the first instance. 8. It was also urged by Miss Sapru that the plaint deserved to be rejected, as disclosing no cause of action. under Rule 11 of Order 7, C.P.C. According to her it was a frivolous and vexatious case which was set up in the plaint and the power under Rule 11 of order 7 should be exercised. Reliance was placed, on the decision of the Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another, (A.I.R. 1977 SC 2421). The trial Judge has, so far, not been invited to go into this question. The matter would be gone into by him in accordance with law when raised. The determination of this question is outside the scope of the controversy which has been raised before this court in the present Revision. Likewise, the present is not the proper stage when the court should go into the question whether any adverse inference should be drawn against the plaintiff-opposite party on account of non-production of certain documents. The matter is left to be determined at the appropriate stage. 9. With the aforesaid observations the Revision is disposed of finally by directing that the trial Judge shall afford a further opportunity to the defendant-applicant reasonable having regard to the fact that the defendant is at present residing outside the country, for filing her written statement and thereafter proceed in the case in accordance with law. 10. Parties shall appear before the trial Judge on September 6, 1986 with a copy of this order to enable the learned Judge to proceed with the matter further. The interim order shall stand discharged.