ORAL JUDGMENT:- Admit. The appeal is being heard and finally at the stage of admission. Appeal From Order No. 73 of 2006 decided on 31-8-2006. (Aurangabad) 2. By this appeal, the appellant Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad challen order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad on 3-2-200 Exhs.27 and 28 in Special Civil Suit No. 372 of 2004 striking out the de the appellant Zilla Parishad under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of t of Civil Procedure. By this appeal, the appellants have also challenged t passed below Exh.30 on 4-7-2006 rejecting the application filed by the ap for setting aside the order dated 3-2-2006 by which the Court had direc the defence of the appellants be struck off. A few facts giving rise controversy in question are stated as under: The respondent Contractor filed Special Civil Suit No.372 of recovery of amount of Rs. 25,10,401/- against the appellant Zilla P Aurangabad. The Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad resisted the claim of the contractor by filing written statement and also filed a list of documen with the written statement. On 21-10-2005, the plaintiff contractor application for production of six documents under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Judge, Senior Aurangabad, by an order dated 16-1-2006, directed the defendant Zilla Aurangabad to produce the documents as per the notice. The appellant Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad was, however, not able to produce all the d which were directed to be produced by order dated] 6-1-2006. According appellant Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, one of the documents was available the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad and, therefore, it had produced it on could not produce the other documents in time as the appellant/defend public body having various departments and the present matter pertained supply department. It was also brought to the notice of the Court by a application dated 28-2-2006 by the appellant that the plaintiff had received the approved bill for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 ana copies were in possession and custody of the plaintiff. Since the appe not able to comply with the order passed by the trial Court dated 16-1 plaintiff filed an application under provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of th Civil Procedure praying that the defence of the Zilla Parishad, Auran struck off as there was non-compliance of the orders passed by the Co 1-2006. Since the appe not able to comply with the order passed by the trial Court dated 16-1 plaintiff filed an application under provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of th Civil Procedure praying that the defence of the Zilla Parishad, Auran struck off as there was non-compliance of the orders passed by the Co 1-2006. Though the appellants sought time for production of the docu Court refused to grant the same and by the impugned order dated struck off the defence of the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 3. Thereafter the appellant Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad produced certain documents, as per the list and requested the Court that the measurement book etc. be taken on record and the order passed by the 3-2-2006 be set aside. After considering the application and the say fi respondent/plaintiff, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad re application filed by the appellant Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad for settin order dated 3-2-2006, by order dated 28-2-2006. The appellants have the orders passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad on and 28-2-2006 in the instant appeal. 4. Shri B. R. Surwase, learned counsel appearing on beh appellants submitted that the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction whil the application filed by the plaintiff under the provisions of Orders 39, Rule 11 of the Code Civil Procedure. It was canvassed on behalf of the appellants that in the appellants had failed to produce the documents as per the direction of the by order dated 16-1-2006, the Court at the most could have drawn an adverse inference against the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad at the time of deciding uit on merits but could not have struck off the defence of the defendant Zilla had, Aurangabad by invoking the provisions of Order 39, Rule II of Code ivil Procedure. It was then canvassed on behalf of the appellants that the dated 3-2-2006 is a cryptic order and the only reason for allowing the application of the plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil dure for striking out the defence of the appellant Zilla Parishad, ngabad was that the direction of the Court for production of documents was omplied. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the order dated 46 was also not justified as the appellants had sought to produce certain r documents in the form of measurement book etc. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the order dated 46 was also not justified as the appellants had sought to produce certain r documents in the form of measurement book etc. on record along with the list of documents, which was sought to be produced on behalf of the defendant. 5. Shri Deshpandc, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent contractor supported the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad striking out the defence of the appellant Zilla Parishad. Aurangabad as well as the order rejecting the application for setting aside the striking out the defence. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that appellant Zilla Parishad. Aurangabad has not produced six documents on rd even till this date and the order passed by the trial Court on 16-1-2006 is omplied till today. It is further canvassed on behalf of the respondent that 11 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for penalty of ng out the defence if the contravention or breach of the order passed the is committed by the defendant or the opponent. According to the counsel respondent, when a Court orders any party to a suit or proceeding to do or o do a thing during pendency of the suit or proceeding and if such party its any default in respect of the order or commits any breach of the order. trial Court is empowered to strike out the defence in case default is itted by the defendant. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that since instant case, the trial Court had directed the appellants to produce six ments by order dated 16-1-2006 and since the aforesaid order was not lied with, the provisions of Order 39, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil procedure came into play and the trial Court was justified in striking out the evidence of the defendant Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 6. I have perused the order passed by the trial Court on 16-1-2006 as also ders passed by the Court on 3-2-2006 and 4-7-2006, which are impugned in appeal. The provisions of Order 39, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure are perused. Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the matters to temporary injunction and interlocutory orders which are referred to in order 39. The provisions of Order 39, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure are perused. Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the matters to temporary injunction and interlocutory orders which are referred to in order 39. The provisions of Order 39 Code of Civil Procedure deal with tamporary injunctions, consequences of disobedience or breach of injunctions. interime to order interim sale, detention preservation, inspection etc. of subject of suit, directions to put a person in immediate possession of land which is ubject-matter of suit, deposit of any money in the Court etc. Rule 11 of order 39 stipulates that when the Court orders any party to a suit or proceeding to do or not to do a thing during the pendency of the suit or the proceedi where any party to a suit or proceeding gives any undertaking to the Court or restrain from doing a thing during pendency of the suit or proceeding such party commits any default or contravenes such order or commits a bre such undertaking, the Court may dismiss the suit or proceeding if the bre committed by the plaintiff or strike out the defence if the breach or defa committed by the defendant/opponent. The words "to do or not to do a during pendency of a suit or proceeding" would not be referable to eac every direction which is issued by the trial Court under the provisions Code of Civil Procedure. The phraseology used in Rule 11 of Order 39 of of Civil Procedure would be normally referable to an act which is directey done under the provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedur directions which can be issued or the interlocutory orders which can be pas the Court under the provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Proced already enumerated hereinabove. In the instant case, the trial Court had, order dated 16-1-2006, directed the appellant Zilla Parishad, Auranga produce certain documents of which a notice to produce the documents w on behalf of the plaintiff. The appellant Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad was n to produce those documents before the Court on the date which was sped the order. Non-production of the documents, which are directed to be prod pursuance of a notice, would not entail or result into consequences whi provided under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Procedure. The appellant Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad was n to produce those documents before the Court on the date which was sped the order. Non-production of the documents, which are directed to be prod pursuance of a notice, would not entail or result into consequences whi provided under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Procedure. The drastic step of striking out the defence of the defendant opponent could not be taken merely because the defendant has failed to a document which was directed to be produced by the Court. Normally, failure to produce a document which is directed to be produced, would at the most result in drawing an adverse inference against the party who fails to produce it resulting in an advantage to the other party at whose instance the docu sought to be produced on record. However, the Court cannot exerce jurisdiction under Rule 11 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure in case for either dismissing the suit of the plaintiff or striking out the defenc defendant or the opponent. To hold that the powers under Order 39 Rul the Code of Civil Procedure could be invoked in such a case would drastic consequences. 7. In the instant case, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Auranga exceeded its jurisdiction in striking out the defence of the defenda Parishad, Aurangabad merely because the defendant had failed to produce documents on record as per the directions of the Court. The said directio issued by the Court on an application filed by the plaintiff/notice to pro document. The impugned order dated 3-2-2006, therefore, suffers jurisdictional error and is, therefore, liable to be interfered with in this Since the order dated 3-2-2006 suffers from a jurisdictional err consequential order dated 4-7-2006 refusing to set aside the order dated J also has to fall. The orders dated 3-2-2006 and 4-7-2006 cannot be sustained. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, appeal is allowed. The orders passe Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad on 3-2-2006 and 4-7-2006 are hereby quahed and set aside. In facts of the case, there would be no order as to costs. 9. Civil Applicatuion No. 7585 of 2006 also stands disposed of. Appeal Appeared