JUDGMENT F.M. Reis, J.- Heard Mr. A.F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, whereby the objections raised by the petitioner to take on record the document C-59 colly came to be overruled. The main contention of Mr. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that though the learned Judge while taking on record the main document which is a sale deed has also exhibited the alleged translation of the said document which translation is disputed by the petitioner. The learned counsel further pointed out that though the petitioner has no objection to produce the certified copy of the deed of sale dated 10.05.1928 nevertheless, the petitioner strongly opposed the production of the translation which according to him is not correct. The learned counsel further pointed out that the sale deed is in Portuguese language and as such the petitioner disputes the correctness of the translation produced by the respondents. The learned counsel further pointed out that in view of the objection raised by the petitioner, the learned Judge was not justified to exhibit the said translation along with the said sale deed. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There is no dispute that the main document which is sale deed dated 10.05.1928 is exhibited as Exhibit C-59 which otherwise is not objected to by the petitioner. 'The only grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the translation produced by the respondents is not correct and as such, according to him, the learned Judge was not justified to take such translation on record. Such objection of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is taken care of in Order XIII Rule 4(3) of d the Civil Procedure Code as amended by this Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by notification dated 21.12.1985. Order XIII Rule 4(3) of CPC reads thus : "(3) Every document produced in evidence which is not written in English shall be accompanied by a correct translation thereof in English. If the document is admitted in evidence, the opposite party shall either admit the correctness of the translation or submit his own translation of the document." 4. On plain reading of the said provisions. If the document is admitted in evidence, the opposite party shall either admit the correctness of the translation or submit his own translation of the document." 4. On plain reading of the said provisions. it clearly provide that every document produced in evidence which is not written in English shall be accompanied by correct translation thereof in English and the opposite party shall either admit the correctness of the translation or submit his own translation of such document. In the present case, in case the petitioner disputes the correctness of the said translation, it is always open to the petitioner in terms of the said provisions to a produce their own translation of such document. 5. Subject to the above. I find that no case is made out by the petitioner for any interference in the impugned order. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.