JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. Defendants as appellants against a reversing judgment. 2. Bheka Mohanty, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos.1 to 6, as plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that he had purchased Ac.0.56 dec. of land from defendant nos.1 to 3 by means of a registered sale deed dated 21.07.73 Ext.1. He was in possession of the land. As the defendants disturbed his possession, he instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra. 3. The defendants entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that Ext.1 was not an out and out sale, but a ‘Biswasi’ Kabala. They approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.400/-. He agreed to advance money subject to execution of a mortgage deed. Since he had no money lending licence, they executed the deed. It was agreed upon between the parties that the suit land shall be re-conveyed on repayment of the loan by another sale deed to defendant nos. 1 to 3. Possession of the suit land was not delivered to the plaintiff. One-forth of the harvest from the suit land in lieu of interest was being paid to the plaintiff. They approached the plaintiff, offered Rs.400/- and execute the sale deed. But then, the plaintiff refused to do so. There are other co-sharers of the suit property. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Parties led evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. He failed to establish title over the same. He has not acquired title on the strength of the sale deed vide Ext.1. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The legal heirs of the plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak in T.A. No. 66 of 1986. The same was allowed. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the suit, Bheka Mohanty, sole plaintiff died, whereafter his legal representatives have been substituted. Similarly during pendency of the appeal, respondent no.5 died and her name was deleted from the cause title. 5. The same was allowed. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the suit, Bheka Mohanty, sole plaintiff died, whereafter his legal representatives have been substituted. Similarly during pendency of the appeal, respondent no.5 died and her name was deleted from the cause title. 5. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the lower appellate court was justified in reversing the finding of partition and separate possession by plaintiff’s vendor basing only on legal presumption of joint-ness ?” 6. Heard Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shyamananda Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Manoj Kumar Agarwal, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Advocate for the respondents. 7. This appeal was listed for hearing on 16.01.2018. On verification of LCR, this Court found that as many as five documents have been exhibited by the plaintiffs. Curiously none of the documents are there in the LCR. This Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to cause an enquiry and submit a report. On 18.01.2018, the Registrar (Judicial) submitted a detailed report stating therein that the Judge-in-charge of Record Room, Balasore intimated the Registry of the Court on 05.01.1995 that the exhibited documents had been taken back by the counsel for the plaintiffs for which notices had been issued to the party to return those documents. While taking back the original documents, the original documents had not been substituted by the certified copies. The matter was listed on 19.01.2018. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents sought for time. This Court passed the order that in the event documents are not filed by 30th January, 2018, then the same shall be treated as non-existent. The matter was listed on 01.02.2018. Learned counsel for the respondents again sought for time to produce the exhibited documents. Today, learned counsel for the respondents expresses his inability to produce the exhibited documents. This Court shall proceed as if the documents have not been exhibited. Pleading is not proof. The plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. The substantial question of law, in view of the peculiar facts of the case, need not be answered. 8. In the wake of the aforesaid, the judgment and decree of the learned appellate court are set aside. The appeal is allowed. Consequentially, the suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.