JUDGMENT : The petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.2 of 2005. It is aggrieved of order dated 14.02.2018 by which its application, for marking certain documents on the ground that these documents shall be deemed to have been admitted by the defendants, has been rejected. 2. Referring to the decision in “Mohd. Yunus vs. Devjani” reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ 24 , Mr. Rohitashya Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that once the defendants were debarred from filing their objection to the application under Order-XII Rule 2 CPC, it must be construed in law that the documents sought to be produced have been admitted by the defendants and while so, the court cannot refuse to mark such documents as exhibits. Further plea raised by the petitioner is that on a technical ground, more particularly, some typographical or technical error the court cannot decline to mark such documents as exhibits. 3. Title Suit No.2 of 2005 has been instituted for a decree for declaration that the defendants have no right to put the plaintiff’s unit under auction-sale and for a decree for perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from transferring the factory premises of the plaintiff to any intending purchaser. A decree for Rs.1,78,42,900/- with interest @ 24 % per annum, pendente lite and future, is also prayed in the plaint. In the pending suit, an application was filed on 18.06.2012 seeking leave of the court for producing additional documents in evidence. This application has been allowed, however, with the observation that these documents shall be considered at the time of final disposal of the suit. It appears that on 18.06.2012 the petitioner had issued a notice also under Order-XII Rule 2 CPC to which the defendants failed to file their objection. The petitioner thereafter filed an application on 18.12.2017 for marking the documents, in respect of which the notice under Order-XII Rule 2 CPC was issued to the defendants on 18.06.2012. This application was dismissed on technical grounds and, therefore, the petitioner has filed a similar application on 04.01.2018. However, the trial Judge has dismissed this application on the ground that in the notice under Order-XII Rule 2 CPC the plaintiff has not indicated the date and time for inspection by the defendants. 4. The notice dated 18.06.2012 issued by the plaintiff was under Order-XII Rule 2 CPC, which reads as under : “2. However, the trial Judge has dismissed this application on the ground that in the notice under Order-XII Rule 2 CPC the plaintiff has not indicated the date and time for inspection by the defendants. 4. The notice dated 18.06.2012 issued by the plaintiff was under Order-XII Rule 2 CPC, which reads as under : “2. Notice to admit documents.- Either party may call upon the other party to admit, within seven days from the date of service of the notice any document, saving all just exceptions; and in case of refusal or neglect to admit, after such notice, the costs of proving any such document shall be paid by the party so neglecting or refusing, whatever the result of the suit may be, unless the Court otherwise directs; and no costs of proving any document shall be allowed unless such notice is given, except where the omission to give the notice is, in the opinion of the Court, a saving of expense.” 5. A bare perusal of Order-XII Rule 2 CPC provides that if a party refuses or neglects to admit any document within seven days from the date of service of notice, he shall be liable to pay the cost of proving such document whatsoever the result of the suit may be, unless the court otherwise directs. The applications dated 18.12.2017 and 04.01.2018 appear to have been filed in terms of Rule 2-A to Order-XII CPC. However, in the aforesaid two applications the plaintiff has not pleaded that the documents, as many as 22 in numbers, are the documents which have been mentioned in the plaint, or that there is sufficient foundation laid in the plaint for adducing these documents as additional evidence. There was no application filed by the plaintiff for leave of the Court, except the application dated 18.06.2012, to produce those documents as additional evidence. In fact, the aforesaid two applications were filed in the context of notice issued on 18.06.2012 under Order XII Rule 2 CPC. 6. Order-XII CPC lays down the procedure for admission during the trial of a suit. It is important to remember that at this stage issues are yet to be settled and parties to the suit have liberty to move an application for amendment or under Order-VII Rule 14 (3) CPC. Admission of a fact under Order-XII CPC must therefore relate to the pleadings of the parties and not otherwise. It is important to remember that at this stage issues are yet to be settled and parties to the suit have liberty to move an application for amendment or under Order-VII Rule 14 (3) CPC. Admission of a fact under Order-XII CPC must therefore relate to the pleadings of the parties and not otherwise. The object behind Order-XII CPC is to curtail the dispute raised by the parties. Evidently, no notice under Order-XII Rule 2 CPC can be given in respect of a document which has not been produced by a party to the suit. This becomes clear if Rule 2 to Order-XII CPC is read in the context of the presumption raised under Order-XII Rule 2-A CPC. No presumption in respect of a document which is not part of the pleadings and, thus, not on record can be raised under Order-XII Rule 2-A CPC. The previous application filed by the petitioner seeking leave of the court has been allowed by the order dated 11.06.2015, but there was no application in respect of the documents mentioned in the notice dated 18.06.2012, except which are mentioned in the application dated 18.06.2012, seeking leave of the court for producing those documents as additional evidence in the suit. May be, the trial Judge has rejected the application on the ground that the notice dated 18.06.2012 was defective, the application filed by the petitioner for marking the documents which were mentioned in notice dated 18.06.2012 cannot be said to have been admitted by the defendants. No doubt, a party to the suit can admit a document at any stage of the trial but the admission must be clear and unequivocal. Admission by default can be only under the situation contemplated under the Code. 7. The trial Judge has, in the aforesaid facts, rightly refused to mark the documents mentioned in the notice dated 18.06.2012, except the loan agreement dated 14.05.1999 and photocopy of letter dated 15.01.2002. 8. The genuineness, validity, admissibility and the contents of the documents which have been taken on record vide order dated 11.06.2015 shall be examined at the final hearings in the suit. Needless to indicate that the plaintiff shall be permitted to mark these documents through one of its witnesses. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.