JUDGMENT : The legality of the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ist, Ranchi in Title Suit No.451 of 2012 has been questioned by the plaintiff-petitioner in this writ application. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the Title Suit No.451 of 2012 with adequate court-fees and second copy of the plaint. Whereafter several opportunities were granted to the petitioner to file original documents to establish the basis of the suit, but as the same was not filed, by order impugned, the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order as bad in law submits that the court below erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code merely on the ground that original documents were not filed even after providing opportunities. It is further submitted that after the institution of the suit, the trial court cannot dismiss the suit at the initial stage itself on the ground that original documents were not filed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that Order VII Rule 14 of the Code provides that at the time of presentation of plaint, the plaintiff is required to produce the document in his possession upon which his claim is based but as the same were not filed, the plaint has been rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and in fact the order impugned was passed under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code and therefore, it suffers from no infirmity. 5. For better appreciation of the dispute between the parties, a reference of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is necessary, which reads as follows: “Order VII Rule 11. 5. For better appreciation of the dispute between the parties, a reference of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is necessary, which reads as follows: “Order VII Rule 11. Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to so correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9. Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be record, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” On bare perusal of the above provision, it would be clear that a plaint can not be rejected on the ground of non-filing of relevant documents which are considered to be the basis for filing the suit rather the plaint can be rejected on the grounds as mentioned in the above provision. 6. So far as the contention of the respondent that the order impugned was passed under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code, I have no hesitation in holding that even if the documents concerned were not filed after providing opportunity, there is no such provision in Order VII Rule 14 of the Code to reject the plaint. On perusal of the contents of writ petition, it would appear that the petitioner had to file the record of rights, registered partition deed as well as sale deeds appertaining to the suit property. On perusal of the contents of writ petition, it would appear that the petitioner had to file the record of rights, registered partition deed as well as sale deeds appertaining to the suit property. Apparently, the petitioner could not produce the original record of rights as the custodian of the said document is the State. The order-sheet of Title Suit No.451 of 2012 discloses that upon presentation of the plaint, the suit was instituted and it was fixed for hearing on the point of admission. I am of the opinion that, subject to specific provisions in the Code, after a suit has been instituted, it can not be dismissed or plaint cannot be rejected either under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code or under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to file original documents. I am of the opinion that impugned order dated 20.03.2013 suffers from serious infirmity in law. Accordingly, it is set-aside. 7. The writ petition stands allowed. Title Suit No.451 of 2012 is restored to its original file.