Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sukumar Sinha, leaned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 Caveator, who opposes admission and insits that instead of admitting this case I should dispose it of as the opp. party No. 1 (the landlord), the only necessary party, is already before me. 2. I, accordingly, proceed to dispose of this case finally. 3. The petitioner challenges an order passed by Sri Chandrika Paswan Munsif, I Patna in Eviction Suit No. 70 of 1989 rejecting his petition, filed for directing the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 to produce his sale deeds on the basis of which he claims himself to be the landlord in a suit filed under Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 hereinafter referred to as the Act. 4. The main ground taken by the petitioner was that as the plaintiff-opp. party No. 1 claims to have purchased the premises in his tenancy on the basis of two registered sale deeds, which are in her custody, without perusal of which it would be difficult for him to file his written statement. 5. A rejoinder was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1. She stated that the petitioner (defendant No. 3) has got no such right to make a prayer without filing his written statement; that it is for her to say as to whether her suit will fail on account of non-production of her documents or not; that both sale deeds have also been misplaced ; and thus the prayer be rejected. 6. The court below by the impugned order rejected the prayer of the petitioner on these grounds: (i) It is for the plaintiff to produce her documents, (ii) It is for her to prove her case which she will do during trial, (iii) The documents have been, misplaced, (iv) The submission that the written statement cannot be filed without looking at the sale deeds does not appear to be justified. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Sukumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits as follows: The court below has erred in not at all considering the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court in Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh V/s. Thakur Satnarain Singh, reported in 1955 BLJR 255 laying down the scope of Orders VII and XI of the Code of Civil Procedure and has erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. It was essential for the petitioner to persue the deeds on the basis of which the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 claimed her title of the premises and a landlord within the meaning of the Act. Eariier the landlord of the petitioner was one Sushil Chandra Palit, after whose death, one of his four sons, Sushanta Chandra Palit became the landlord to whom the tenanted premises was allotted by virtue of a private arrangement. Though the sale deeds were claimed to be registered but from the enquiry in the Patna Registry they could not be traced out. He further submits that the plea that the sale deeds were misplaced was incorrect and even assuming to be correct the plaintiff ought to have been directed to produce their certified copies. The defendant legitimately, before filing his written statement had made the prayer and the court below should have allowed the same unless it held that they are not necessary either for fairly disposing of the suit or for saving cost as contemplated under Order XI, Rule 18 of the Code. In fact the plaintiff had no registered documents of transfer and the defence taken by her was a mere fraud on court. He lastly submits that justice requires that the impugned order be set aside and the plaintiff be directed to produce her documents, if any, either in the court below or even before this Court so that an effective written statement could be filed. 8. Mr. Keshri, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1, on the other hand, submits as follows: No jurisdictional error has been committed by the court below while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. The suit has not been finally disposed of and the order impugned is not a case decided. The purpose for which the documents were sought to be inspected has disappeared as now a written statement has been filed by the petitioner. The suit has not been finally disposed of and the order impugned is not a case decided. The purpose for which the documents were sought to be inspected has disappeared as now a written statement has been filed by the petitioner. In his written statement, the petitioner has challenged the validity etc., of the deeds of the opposite party No. 1. The revision petition, has, thus become infructuous and no interference is required. The provisions of Order VII, Rule 14 or of Order XI of the Code do not apply to the cases under the Act as the Act lays down a special procedure. The revision petition is, thus, fit to be dismissed. 9. Mr. Sinha, in reply, submits that provisions of Orders VII and XI, Rules 14, 15, 18 and 21 of the Code applies to suits for eviction under the Act also. The petitioner, in view of rejection of his prayer, had to file his written statement but reserved his right to file an additional written statement after perusal of the deeds. Impugned order can still be challenged as a right vested in him to see the documents has been illegally denied by taking an incorrect plea. There is no averment about the misplacing of deeds in the counter affidavit of the opp. party No. 1. Documents in question not having been shown even now though for the said purpose this case was adjourned on 10.8.1990, adverse inference be drawn against the opposite party No. 1. 10. Mr. Keshri, further replies that as no direction in writing was made on the earlier date the documents were not filed. He tries to show me a copy of the deed claiming to be one of the sale deeds in question but when I put a question to him as to whether this is a document registered under Secs. 60 and 61 of the Indian Registration Act by which the disputed premises was transferred, he states that he is not in a position to say. 11. Order VII, Rule 14 (1) of the Code runs as follows: Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. 12. 11. Order VII, Rule 14 (1) of the Code runs as follows: Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. 12. Order XI, Rules 14, 15, 18 and 21 of the Code runs as follows: 14. Production of documents.--It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right ; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just. 15. Inspection of documents referred to in pleading or affidavits.--Every party to a suit shall be entitled to at any time to give notice to any other party, in whose pleadings or affidavits reference made to any document or who has entered any document in any list annexed to his pleadings or produce such document for the inspection of the party giving such notice, or of his pleader, and to permit him or to take copies thereof ; and any party not complying with such notice shall not afterwards be at liberty to put any such document in evidence on his behalf in such suit unless he shall satisfy the Court that such document relates only to his own title, he being a defendant to the suit, or that he had some other cause or excuse which the Court shall deem sufficient for not complying with such notice, in which case the Court may allow the same to be put in evidence on such terms as to costs and otherwise as the Court shall think fit. 18. 18. Order for inspection.-- (1) Where the party served with notice under Rule 15 omits to give such notice of a time for inspection or objects to give inspection, or offers inspection elsewhere than at the office of his pleader, the Court may, on the application of the party desiring it, make an order for inspection in such place and in such manner as it may think fit: Provided that the order shall not be made when and so far as the Court shall be of the opinion that, it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. (2) Any application to inspect document, except such as are referred to in the pleading, particulars or affidavits of the party against whom the application is made or disclosed in his affidavit of documents shall be founded upon an affidavit showing of what documents inspection is sought, that the party applying is entitled to inspect them, and that they are in the possession or power of the other party. The Court shall not make such order for inspection of such documents when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. 21. Non-compliance with order for discovery.-- (1) 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 on such application accordingly, after notice to the parties and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) Where an order is made under Sub-rule (1) dismissing any suit, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. 13. Kamakhya Narain Singhs case is a Division Bench judgment of this Court and is binding on me. (2) Where an order is made under Sub-rule (1) dismissing any suit, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. 13. Kamakhya Narain Singhs case is a Division Bench judgment of this Court and is binding on me. It held that a defendant has ample right under Order XI, Rule 15 of the Code to ask for production of documents referred to in the pleading (plaint) at any time even before filing of written statement. It further laid down that reference of such document has to be made in the pleadings, no matter whether they create any right or they are mere pieces of evidence. It also held that ordinarily the court allow such prayer unless it is of the opinion that they are not necessary for fairly disposing of the suit or for saving cost as provided under Order XI, Rule 18 of the Code. It even further held that Legislature intended to grant ample scope to a defendant to have inspection of such documents which were either sued upon or relied upon by the plaintiff in his pleading. It also held, when such a prayer was rejected that the learned Subordinate Judge acted wrongly in exercise of his jurisdiction. 14. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff claims to have purchased the land in question by virtue of registered sale deeds on payment of valuable consideration. 15. Registration of a document amounts to notice. 16. In the aforesaid view of the matter for a fair trial of the suit also the plaintiff ought to have produced either the original sale deeds or their certified copies after taking time. 17. Sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction Control) Act, 1982 runs as follows: (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) or any other law, the Court while hearing a suit under this section shall follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes including the recording of evidence. 18. By virtue of Sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 14 of the Act while hearing a suit under this Section the Court has to follow practice and procedure of a Court of Small Cause including recording of evidence. 18. By virtue of Sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 14 of the Act while hearing a suit under this Section the Court has to follow practice and procedure of a Court of Small Cause including recording of evidence. Sec. 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act lays down that the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure shall be the procedure to be followed in a Small Cause Court save in so far as otherwise provided by that Code or by the said Act. 19. Order XI of the Code governs the practice and procedure in relation to discovery, inspection and production of documents. The provisions of Order XI, Rule 21 being penal in nature it cannot be said that no obligation is left in the plaintiff not to comply with the direction of the court made under Order XI, Rules 14 and 18 of the Code. 20. I find that A.I.R. Commentaries on the Code refers to A.I.R. 1961 M.P. 152, A.I.R. 1929 All. 816, A.I.R. 1926 Madras 679 and A.I.R. 1918 Calcutta 869 wherein it was held that the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code applies to a Court of Small Cause. No decision has been cited by Mr. Keshri to support his submission. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, I, thus, hold that provisions of Order VII and of Order XI of the Code apply to a suit under the special procedure under the Act. 22. The further contention of Mr. Keshri that the written statement now having been filed, no interference is required, in my view, also lacks substance. In paragraph 37 of the written statement filed under compulsion, as show to me, the petitioner has reserved his right to file a further written statement after production of the alleged sale deeds in Court for inspection. In fact it is in the interest of the petitioner to produce her sale deeds so that her suit be disposed of expeditiously if the petitioner after looking at them withdraws his challenge to her status of being a landlord under the Act. 23. Kamakhya Narain Singhs, case having held that in such a situation a right has been created in the defendant, the order impugned, in the facts and circumstances, is also held to be a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code read with its explanation. 24. 23. Kamakhya Narain Singhs, case having held that in such a situation a right has been created in the defendant, the order impugned, in the facts and circumstances, is also held to be a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code read with its explanation. 24. I, thus, being bound by the Division Bench judgment in Kamakhya Narain Singh (supra), hold that the court below acted illegally in refusing to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it under Order XI, Rule 18 of the Code. 25. However, justice requires that the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 should still be given a chance to produce her sale deeds so that the petitioner could file his effective final written statement with, liberty that if the original deeds in fact have been misplaced and not traced out, she may produce their certified copies. 26. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order. I direct the plaintiff to produce her sale deeds within 30 days in the trial court from the receipt of this order or its production in the court below failing which the court below shall proceed to dispose of the suit in terms of Order XI, Rule 21 of the Code. 27. In peculiar facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost, however.