Judgment :- The plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 02-06-2015 in I.A.No.102 of 2015 in O.S.No.1360 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The respondents are defendants in O.S.No.1360 of 2014 and the suit was filed by the petitioner herein as plaintiff for cancellation of a registered sale deed bearing document No.1406 of 1998 of Sub-Registrar’s Office, Gunadala, Vijayawada. Along with the plaint, a notarized copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.823 of 1987 executed by Valluru Chandra Sekhara Rao dated 23-02-1987 in favour of the plaintiff and her parents was filed. The 1st defendant filed I.A.No.102 of 2015 seeking a direction from the Court to the plaintiff to produce original registered sale deed No.823 of 1987 dated 23-02-1987 to enable him to inspect the same and file a written statement. A counter was filed stating that the original document which was executed when the plaintiff was a minor would be produced during the course of trial. After considering rival contentions, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada passed the following order. “Perused the counter filed by the respondent/plaintiff which reveals that they will file the document at the time of trial but it is contended by the petitioner, unless the suit documents were filed by the respondent/plaintiff, it is not possible to file the written statement before this Court. Hence, it is just a necessary to give a direction to the plaintiff to produce the original Regd. Sale deed No.823/87, dated 23-2-87 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada within 15 days by giving a copy of the same to the petitioner.” Now the present revision petition is filed by the Plaintiff, challenging the said order on the ground that it is for the plaintiff to produce original registered sale deed as and when he likes and he cannot be forced to produce the same. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Order XI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for production of a ‘document’ and it does not specify the production of either original or a copy of the same. The plaintiff already filed a notarized copy of the said sale deed along with the plaint and the trial Court ought not to have ordered for production of the original sale deed. The plaintiff already filed a notarized copy of the said sale deed along with the plaint and the trial Court ought not to have ordered for production of the original sale deed. A written statement was filed thereafter on 10-08-2015 by the 1st defendant and the relevant portion of written statement filed by the 1st defendant reads as follows: “......It is submitted that in spite of the best efforts of the police, the Municipal Commissioner, Vijayawada and the Registrar of Stamps could not trace the plaintiff in the addresses given by her. It is submitted that the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps passed orders directing the District Registrar, Vijayawada to make a note in both volume and index to cancel the reconstructed document No.823/87 of Book No.1 of R.O. Vijayawada. It is submitted that the police also tried their best to trace the plaintiff in the addresses given by her including the address given in the plaint but found it false.....” It appears from the above that there is a suspicion with regard to execution of registered document No.823/1987, the notarized copy of which was filed along with the plaint. Order XI Rule 15 of CPC reads as follows: “Inspection of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavits:- Every party to a suit shall be entitled [at or before the settlement of issues] to give notice to any other party, in whose pleadings or affidavits reference is made to any document [or who has entered any document in any list annexed to his pleadings] 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 afterwards 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 relates 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.” Order XI of C.P.C. deals with discovery and inspection of documents. Rules 1 to 10 deal with interrogatories. Rules 1 to 10 deal with interrogatories. Rules 12 to 14 deal with production of documents in possession or power of a party to proceedings. Rules 15 to 19 deal with inspection of documents. Rule 15 specifically deals with the production of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavits. Rule 15 was amended on the recommendation of the Law Commission in view of the conflicting decisions of the courts with regard to application of the said rule to the documents mentioned in the list annexed to the plaint. Now the controversy relates to the production of original document. Even though the Rule does not speak that the document mentioned therein relates to production of original document, in view of Order XIII Rule 1 of CPC, the plaintiff is under an obligation to file original document. However, it is for the Plaintiff to file the original document in case he wants to rely on such document in further proceedings of the suit. If he chooses not to file such original document, the latter portion of the said Rule comes into operation, which shall be taken note by the court. Though in view of subsequent filing of the written statement by the 1st defendant, the reasons mentioned by the trial Court is not available, in view of the above position of law, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be found fault with and it is accordingly upheld. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.