JUDGMENT : A.V. SESHA SAI, J. Heard Sri V.V. Satish, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri M.K. Raj Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the respondents. 2. Challenge in the present appeal suit, preferred under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred as 'CPC') is to the order and decree, dated 23.10.2008 passed by the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in unnumbered Original Suit of 2008 (GR No.6479, dated 16.06.2008). 3. The appellant herein instituted the subject suit against the respondents for declaration of tile in respect of the suit schedule land and for consequential relief of recovery of possession of the land. The plaint schedule property is an extent of Acs.2.00 cents of land in Survey No.1/8 of Madhurawada Village, Chinagadila Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4. By way of the impugned order, the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, rejected the plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action and the appellant failed to file the original of D-Form Patta. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is highly erroneous, contrary to law and not inconsonance with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 and Order 13 Rule 1 CPC. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned Counsel that, the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, grossly erred in rejecting the suit, on the ground of non-filing of the original of D-Form Patta, at the time of presentation of the suit. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents contends that, having lost the litigation before the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh and having failed to file the original of the D-Form Patta, which according to the Government is a fake one, the appellant herein is not entitled for a relief from this Court and the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is perfectly justified in rejecting the suit 7. In view of the above background, now the points that arise for consideration of this Court in the present appeal are : 1. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is sustainable and tenable? 2. Whether the order impugned is in terms of the provisions of Order 7 Rule14 and Order 13 Rule 1 CPC? 8. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is sustainable and tenable? 2. Whether the order impugned is in terms of the provisions of Order 7 Rule14 and Order 13 Rule 1 CPC? 8. In order to resolve the issues in the present appeal, it would be apt and appropriate to refer to the provisions of Order 7 Rule14 and Order 13 Rule 1 CPC. According to sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of Order 7 of CPC, "where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint". 9. Sub-rule (1) of Order 13 CPC, reads as follows : 1. Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues.-(1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed alongwith plaint or written statement. (2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced : 10. It is very much apparent from a reading of sub-rule (1) Order 13 CPC that, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed alongwith plaint or written statement, are required to be made available before the Court on or before the settlement of issues. 11. Admittedly, in the instant case, by the time the impugned order came to be passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, the stage as envisaged under Rule 1 Order 13 CPC did not reach. Therefore, the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, grossly erred in rejecting the suit, on the ground that the appellant failed to produce the original of the D-Form Patta, even before the settlement of the issues. 12. It is also significant to note that while disposing the writ appeal filed by the appellant, the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed that the plaintiff/appellant had got the remedy to file a suit. 13. 12. It is also significant to note that while disposing the writ appeal filed by the appellant, the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed that the plaintiff/appellant had got the remedy to file a suit. 13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal suit is allowed, setting aside the order and decree, dated 23.10.2008 passed by the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and the suit shall be numbered and be proceeded in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made supra. No order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.