JUDGMENT The revision is directed against the order dated 15.11.96 passed on the application under section 137 together with order 1 rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The only submission as advanced by the learned counsel was that the document which has been filed in· the Court below by the plaintiff is in Sindhi language and not in Hindi. The revision petition is at the behest of the defendant whose application was rejected by the Court below. In the suit, the defendant has filed his written statement and he is conversant with the Sindhi language, as is evident from the order. It is not the case of the defendant that he is not at all conversant with the Sindhi language. The Court recorded the finding that in view of the fact that he knows every fact of the document and after knowing the sattle and understanding the same, he filed his written statement on 16.4.96 and therefore, it cannot be accepted that he does not know the Sindhi language or he is having some difficulty. The application was therefore, rejected. So far as section 137 CPC is concerned, it speaks about the language of the subordinate Courts and not regarding the language of the documents. The documents have to be filed in the language in which they are. Sub-section (3) of section 137 CPC says that where this Code requires or allows anything other than the recording of evidence to be done in writing in any such Court, such writing may be in English; but if any party or his pleader is unacquainted with English, a translation into the language of the Court shall, as at his request, be supplied to him; and the Court shall make such order as it thinks fit in respect of the payment of the cost of such translation. This provision does not cover the documents which are filed as a part of evidence by any party to the suit. Learned counsel placed reliance on section 98 Evidence Act. Section 98 Evidence Act does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. In this provision, the Court is always at liberty to call an expert possessing the requisite experience, to explain the meaning of the terms. Learned counsel placed reliance on section 98 Evidence Act. Section 98 Evidence Act does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. In this provision, the Court is always at liberty to call an expert possessing the requisite experience, to explain the meaning of the terms. Learned counsel has not pointed out any other provision either under the Rules of the Civil Court or elsewhere for compelling a person to supply a translated copy of the document in Hindi, of that very language in which the document is written. It appears to be a delaying tactic. The revision is accordingly dismissed, not having any substance.