JUDGMENT : K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - The Petitioners are the Defendants 1 to 3 in Title Suit No. 47 of 1989 in the Court of the Munsif, First Court, Cuttack. The Petitioners filed an application under Order 11, Rule 16 CPC for inspection of the documents referred to in the list annexed to the plaint. In the objection the Plaintiff has stated that since the documents referred to in the petition of the Defendants 1 to 3 are the documents available with the public authority, certified-copies of these documents can be made available to them if they made an application for the same. Therefore, there is no duty on the part of the Plaintiff to produce those documents for inspection. 2. The Court, however, found that specific names of the documents were not disclosed in the petition as the Petitioners-Defendants, according to the Court, did not disclose which are the documents actually needed by them for inspection. The learned Munsif, therefore, rejected the petition of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as bad and not being in order, by his order dated 12-7-1990. 3. Against that order dated 12-7-90 passed by the learned Munsif, First Court, Cuttack in Title Suit No. 47 of 1989, the Defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this civil revision. The contention raised by Mr. B.K. Behura, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that Defendants have right in law under Order 11, Rule 15, CPC to inspect the documents referred to in the list annexed to the plaint apart from the documents which are referred to in the body of the plaint and in his petition under Order 11, Rule 15, CP.C, the Defendants had referred to the items of the documents given in the list annexed to the plaint and there were sufficient specifications of the document. The Court, therefore, tad no justification in law to reject the application of the Defendants. The learned Counsel further argued that just because the documents are within the knowledge of the Defendants or could be available in the public office, those by itself were no ground to reject the petition of the Defendants and prayed for setting aside the said order Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the opp. The learned Counsel further argued that just because the documents are within the knowledge of the Defendants or could be available in the public office, those by itself were no ground to reject the petition of the Defendants and prayed for setting aside the said order Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the opp. parties submits that an application under Order 11, Rule 5, CPC for inspection of documents filed by the Defendants was very pre-matured as the Defendants did not comply with the requirement of Rule 16 of Order 11 by giving notice to the Plaintiff of their intention to inspect those documents as enumerated in the petition made under Order 11, Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Order 7, Rule 14 and 15, Code of Civil Procedure. Reads as follows: Order 7; Rule 14 : Production of document on which Plaintiff sues:-(1) 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. (2) List of other documents: Where he relies on any other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint. Order 7, Rule 15 : Statement in case of documents not in Plaintiff?s possession or power : Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the Plaintiff, he shall, if possible, state in whose possession or power it is. The requirement of Rules 14 and 15 read together is that if the Plaintiff relies on some documents whether in his possession or power or not as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint and Rule 15 requires that where any such document is not in the possession or power of the Plaintiff, he shall, if possible, state in whose possession or power it is. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the opp. parties unable to state if the documents referred to in the list annexed to the plaint were or not in his possession as he has no idea about the compliance of Rule 15 of Order 7 by the Plaintiff. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the opp. parties unable to state if the documents referred to in the list annexed to the plaint were or not in his possession as he has no idea about the compliance of Rule 15 of Order 7 by the Plaintiff. 6. Order 11, Rule 15, CPC reads as follows: Order 11, Rule-15 : Inspection of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavits : Every party to a suit shall be entitled at any time to give notice to any other party, in whose pleadings or affidavit's reference is made to any document (or who has entered any document in any list annexed to his pleading) to produce such document for the inspection of the party giving such notice, or of his pleader, and to permit him or them to take copies thereof; and any party not complying with such notice shall not after wards 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 relate 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. This speaks of rights of every party to a suit to give notice to the other party at any time in whose pleadings or affidavits, reference is made to any document or reference to any document finds place in any list annexed to their pleadings to produce such document for inspection of the party giving such notice shall not afterwards be at liberty to put any such document in evidence on his behalf in such suit unless the Court deems it sufficient that the party refusing to comply with the notice has good reason or cause for non-production. Though Rule 15 of Order II, CPC gives right to the party to make inspection of certain documents, this right is subject to giving notice to the other party in Form No. 7 in Appendix-C of the CPC with such variations as circumstances may require. 7. Though Rule 15 of Order II, CPC gives right to the party to make inspection of certain documents, this right is subject to giving notice to the other party in Form No. 7 in Appendix-C of the CPC with such variations as circumstances may require. 7. Under Order 11, Rule 17, C.P.C, the party to whom such notice is given shall, within ten days from the receipt of such notice deliver to the party giving the same, a notice stating the time within three days from the delivery thereof at which the documents, or such of them as he does not object to produce, may be inspected at the office of his pleader or in the case of Bankers books etc. at their usual place of custody and would indicate in the event he objects to produce such documents, the grounds of such refusal to produce the same and that notice shall be in Form No. 8 in Appendix-C, with such variations as circumstances may require. 8. Order 11, Rule 18 gives right to the parties to make an application to the Court to direct inspection of documents if the party served with a notice under Rule 15 omits to give time of inspection or objects to give inspection or offers inspection elsewhere in accordance with Rule 17 of the same Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. In the present case it is not disputed that no notice was given to the Plaintiff in compliance with Rule 16 of Order-11 though Mr. Behura, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that filing of the petition in the Court under Order 11, Rule-15, CPC was sufficient compliance of Rule 16 regarding the notice to produce the documents. I do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Under the scheme of this Order, right to inspect any document as relied upon in the pleadings of the other side or in the list appended to the pleadings of the other side is available to a party to the suit and it is required under Rules 15, 16 and 17 of Older 11 that the notice of inspection must be given to the party relying upon such document and only when the party noticed refused to produce the documents for inspection, the Court is vested with the power to direct inspection of the documents. 10. 10. The Court, however, has not rejected the petition of the Defendants for inspection of documents on the ground of non-compliance of Order 11, Rule 16, C.P.C, but has rejected the petition as it was not in order. The Court rejected the application on the ground that the documents mentioned in the petition are not specific which is not in fact correct since the reference to items of documents in-the list of documents annexed to the plaint was expressed and in so doing the Court below has acted with materia irregularity and I accordingly set aside the impugned order and direct that the Defendants 2 to 3 are permitted to make a fresh application under Order 11, Rules 15 and 17 for inspection of the documents giving details of the documents in their petition after notice of their inspection to the Plaintiffs as required under Order 11, Rule 16, CPC and on failure of the Plaintiff to allow the Defendants to inspect the documents referred to in the petition, which they are required in law to produce, shall make an application under Order 11, Rules 15 and 18, CPC to the Court and the trial Court shall dispose of the said petition within three weeks of such petition. 11. The Civil revision is disposed of accordingly. No costs.