ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. B.D. Deka learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on call for the respondent, although the names of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 are reflected in the cause-list. Hence, this revision has been heard ex parte against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. By this application under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.4.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in T.S. No. 63/2010. By the said order, the Petition No. 1924/11 dated 4.6.2011 filed by the petitioner under order XI, rule 14 read with section 151, CPC, for production of documents was rejected with a cost of Rs. 1,000. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the plaintiff in T.S. No. 63/2010. He was the owner of the land measuring 2 Kathas described in the schedule of the plaint. He had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1-company for construction of an apartment building on his land and as per the condition of the agreement, the petitioner was entitled to the entire second floor of the proposed building as owner's allocation. However, by committing fraud, the director of the respondent No. 1-company encumbered in favour of his wife the same space which was the land-owner's allocation of the petitioner. The wife of the director of the respondent No. 1 is arrayed as the respondent No. 2. On the strength of such allocation, the respondent No. 2 fraudulently obtained a loan from SBI by mortgaging the space that was allocable to the petitioner. The State Bank of India is arrayed as respondent No. 3 herein. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the suit for declaration, conciliation of the agreement by the respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2 and for permanent injunction. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not contest the suit and the suit was only contested by the respondent No. 3-Bank. Referring to the confirmation letter executed by respondent No. 2, expressing her intention to deposit the title deeds with the respondent No. 3-Bank for the purpose of creating security and creation of equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds (Annexure 6), it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Allotment letter (plaintiff's document No. 13) and Deed of Agreement between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiff's document No. 10) along with other documents described as the title deeds were deposited by the respondent No. 2 with the respondent No. 3-Bank. Therefore, by the said application under order XI, rule 14 read with section 151, CPC, the petitioner had prayed for a direction to the respondent No. 3-Bank to produce the original document Nos. 11, 12 and 13, viz. letter dated 24.8.2009 issued by SARC, SBI, confirmation letter issued by respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3 for depositing title deeds, and letter of allotment issued by the respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2, with further prayer to allow the petitioner to prove the letter dated 11.1.2009 given to him by Alpana Enclave Society and document No. 10, i.e. Agreement for sale dated 22.9.2005 between the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. 5. The learned trial court by the impugned order dated 23.4.2013 had rejected the said prayer. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per his instructions, he is presently pressing for an order for the direction for production of (i) document No. 10, i.e. Sale agreement dated 22.9.2005, (ii) the document No. 12, i.e. Confirmation letter for depositing of title deeds and (iii) document No. 13, i.e. letter of allotment issued to respondent No. 2. 7. It is seen that the learned trial court was conscious of the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had not contested the suit and the suit was proceeding ex parte against them. Under the circumstances and owing to the fact that the petitioner alleges fraud against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, there is no way to compel the said respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to produce the Agreement for sale dated 22.9.2005 between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, if any right has been created on the basis of the said agreement, and as the said documents have been assailed in the suit, the petitioner is bound to prove the document. As per the contents of the Confirmation Letter (Annexure 6), it is mentioned therein that the Deed of Agreement, registered on 22.9.2005 was delivered to the respondent No. 3 as one of title deeds for creation of equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds. Similarly the allotment (Document No. 13) is also found to have been delivered to the respondent No. 3-Bank. 8. Similarly the allotment (Document No. 13) is also found to have been delivered to the respondent No. 3-Bank. 8. Moreover, the Confirmation Letter (Document No. 12) is also found to be delivered to the respondent No. 3-Bank. Under such circumstances, the learned civil court has the power under order XI, rule 14, CPC to order production of such documents. In this connection, this court is of the opinion that the provisions of order XI, rule 14, CPC merely provides for the production of documents. The said provision is quoted herein-below: Order XI “14. Production of documents - It shall be lawful for the court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the court shall think right; and the court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.” 9. In the application for production of documents being Petition No. 1924/11 the petitioner has made a prayer to allow them leave to prove the same by way of secondary evidence. In the considered opinion of this court, a question of secondary evidence will come at the appropriate stage of the suit. If the petitioner is able to succeed in establishing before the trial court, that the pre-conditions of leading secondary evidence was available, thus, it would be open for the learned trial court to consider the prayer for adducing secondary evidence at the appropriate stage of the suit. This court does not find any provision either in the Civil Procedure Code or in the Evidence Act, 1872 requiring the civil court to give prior leave for leading secondary evidence. As the prayer in the Petition No. 1924/11 is essentially a prayer under order XI, rule 14, CPC, notwithstanding that the provision of section 151 has been included in the said petition, the learned trial court is required to consider only the question of the production of documents first. As the prayer in the Petition No. 1924/11 is essentially a prayer under order XI, rule 14, CPC, notwithstanding that the provision of section 151 has been included in the said petition, the learned trial court is required to consider only the question of the production of documents first. In the present case, this court finds that the petitioner has been able to show that at least 3 documents, viz., plaintiff's document No. 10, plaintiff's document No. 12 and plaintiff's document No. 13 are in the custody of the respondent No. 3 Bank, and that the claim of the present petitioner being based on fraud perpetrated by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, this court finds that this is a fit and proper case wherein the prayer for production of those documents is liable to be allowed. 10. It is essential to refer that the procedural law is for ends of justice and is also called a handmaid of justice. Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the petitioner alleges himself to be the owner of the land, and that had given his land to the respondent No. 1-builder for construction of apartment building thereon and as the consideration for such agreement, he was allotted the owner's allocation. Therefore, if he is permitted to loose an opportunity to prove the relevant documents to establish his case, the fallout would be that apart from loosing the land, he would also loose a right of his allocated space. Therefore, the learned trial court ought to have considered the prayer made in the Petition No. 1924/11 to be a petition seeking production of documents. Under such circumstances, the impugned order dated 23.4.2013, in so far as the prayer for production of document Nos. 10, 12 and 13, viz. plaintiff's document No. 10, plaintiff's document No. 12 and plaintiff's document No. 13 is hereby set aside and the said order now stands modified by directing the learned trial court to pass consequential orders for facilitating production of the said three documents. 11. Insofar as the other remaining documents are concerned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to follow the directions contained in the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, in view of the discussions above, the revision stands partly allowed. 11. Insofar as the other remaining documents are concerned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to follow the directions contained in the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, in view of the discussions above, the revision stands partly allowed. The impugned order dated 23.4.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in T.S. No. 63/2010 stands partly set aside and modified to the extent as indicated above. The petitioner shall be at liberty to the petitioner to take necessary steps to call for the above referred 3 documents, viz. plaintiff document No. 10, Plaintiff document No. 12 and plaintiff document No. 13. 13. The parties are left to bear their own cost. 14. The petitioner who is duly represented by the learned counsel shall appear before the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) on 20.4.2018 and by producing a certified copy of this order, shall seek further instructions from the said learned court.