JUDGMENT Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM Nos.25905-06 -CII of 2011 These are the applications for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P-3 to P-5 and seeking permission to place the same on record. Miscellaneous applications are allowed. The petitioners are exempted from filing certified copies of Annexures P-3 to P-5. Annexures P-3 to P-5 are taken on record. CR No 6278 of 2011 Dera Baba Surdass through its Mehant had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that a number of sale deeds mentioned in the heading of the plaint are illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction, and are a result of fraud and not binding upon him. 2. The said suit has been resisted by the defendants. They have defended the sale deeds, the validity of which has been questioned by the plaintiff. 3. After the evidence of the plaintiff was over and the defendants had entered upon their evidence, an application had been filed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC and under Order 18 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC for directing the plaintiff to produce some documents. The documents sought to be produced are as under:- “1- Ration card No.980316, holder's name Dharam Dass, consumer no.506097 of H.No.1229, Sector 19/5, Ward No.4, Kalal Majri, Ambala City. 2-Ration Card of Dinesh Dass s/o Dharm Dass others i.e. plaintiff of village Harpalan, Dera Kheer Ka Khera, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab),code no.64, Srl. No.072284 issued by Assistant Food & Supply Officers, village Ghanour, District Patiala (Punjab) and 3-A copy of judgment and decree in case titled Dharam Dass chela Mansa Dass Udasi Sadh r/o Dera Kheer Ka Khera of village Harpalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab) v. Didar Dass @ Didarpuri s/o Shri Chaman Puri Gosain Sadhu of village Harpalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab) of civil Appeal No.1471 of 1991, decided on 16.01.1993 by Sh. S.S. Grewal, Addl. District Judge, Patiala.” 4. PW-4 Devender Dass i.e. plaintiff has also been prayed to be recalled for further cross-examination with reference to the aforesaid documents. 5. The application has been opposed by the plaintiff claiming that the same is a delaying tactic on the part of the defendants. It is further claimed that the suit is fixed for evidence of the defendants and they want to prove their case through the plaintiff. The application was consequently prayed to be dismissed. 6. 5. The application has been opposed by the plaintiff claiming that the same is a delaying tactic on the part of the defendants. It is further claimed that the suit is fixed for evidence of the defendants and they want to prove their case through the plaintiff. The application was consequently prayed to be dismissed. 6. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been brought by some of the defendants. 7. I have heard Shri R.P. Singh Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the documents were not in the knowledge of the petitioners when the plaintiff appeared in the witness box. According to him, the plaintiff has claimed himself to be Chela of different persons in different proceedings as well as in different ration cards. He has further submitted that the documents could be sought to be produced from the opposite party at any time. According to him, the court was required to conduct an inquiry and to arrive at a finding as to whether the parties were in possession of the documents. In this regard, he has cited before me a decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Bhagwani Devi Mohata Hospital v. ADJ Rajgarh and another 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 542 and of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Murtaza Moosavi v. Hemendra V. Shah & Anr. 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 514. According to him, learned trial court has not taken care of this aspect of the matter and has proceeded to dismiss the application in haste. 9. The plaintiff appeared in the witness box and he was fully cross-examined on behalf of the defendants. He was not questioned on the given aspects. If the same were so relevant, he should have been questioned him on these aspects at that time. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to page no.27 of the paper book where in para no.5, it is mentioned that Dharam Dass was examined as PW-4 and although he was cross-examined but at that time neither the plaintiff had ever disclosed these facts before the court nor the defendants were aware of these facts. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to page no.27 of the paper book where in para no.5, it is mentioned that Dharam Dass was examined as PW-4 and although he was cross-examined but at that time neither the plaintiff had ever disclosed these facts before the court nor the defendants were aware of these facts. Assuming that they were not aware of those facts when Dharam Dass was appearing in the witness box, nothing has been pleaded in the application as to when and how the defendants came to know of these facts, on which they wish to cross-examine Dharam Dass. 10. A copy of judgment, if the particulars thereof are known, can be obtained by the defendants and they can produce the same in the evidence. If there are any such ration cards where the plaintiff has described himself differently, the Food and Supplies Department, who issues the ration cards can be called. Nothing such has been done by the defendants. Moreover, in the absence of a plea as to when the defendants came to know of these facts, it cannot be believed that those facts were not known to the defendants at the time the plaintiff was in the witness box. 11. The Code of Civil Procedure has a definite scheme so far as its orders are concerned. They are in the order in which the proceedings in the suit are to be conducted. Order 11 appears before Order 14 CPC whereunder issues are framed. The stage of production of documents, is, therefore, before settlement of issues. The court is though not precluded from ordering production of documents at any stage, yet the parties asking for the same should come clearly on the record as to when he came to know of those documents. Moreover no ground has been made out for ordering production of the documents which required proof of their existence by getting the record produced from the Food and Supplies Department. 12. For these reasons, learned trial court seems to have been well justified in declining the prayer. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioners do not deal with the aforesaid aspect of the case and so the ratio of those cases do not stand attracted of the facts of this case. The revision petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is dismissed.