ORDER

RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. - This SLP is directed against the judgment and order dated November 9, 1989 of the High Court of Delhi in FAO (OS) 171/89 in limine dismissing the appeal preferred as against the order of a learned Single Judge dated July 25, 1989 sitting on the original side of the High Court. The petitioner/plaintiff filed Suit No. 128 of 1983 for damages. The respondents herein were the defendants in the suit of whom the defendants 1 and 2 filed I.A. No. 5253 of 1989 seeking permission of the court to inspect the property in dispute by defendant 1 and his counsel and to take photographs, if necessary, of the said property for the cross-examination of the plaintiff. This plea of the defendants 1 and 2 was stoutly opposed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The learned Single Judge passed an order dated July 25, 1989 allowing IA, the relevant portion of which reads thus :

"The only prayer is for inspection of the property by advocate and for taking of photographs of the property by the advocate and not by any professional photographer, which according to defendants, will facilitate the cross-examination of the plaintiff. I can see no possible prejudice to the plaintiff in case such a permission is granted to the defendants. Mr. Arun Mohan, learned counsel for defendants 1 and 2 states that he will use the photographs, if permissible in law, only for the purpose of cross-examination of the plaintiff and will not lead any defence evidence to prove such photographs. He further submits that he will not examine any witness on the basis of the inspection which may be permitted to the counsel. In view of the above, I can see no objection to the prayer being allowed.

Accordingly, I allow the advocates of the defendants 1 and 2 namely, Mr. Arun Mohan and Mr. B. P. Aggarwal to inspect the property. Learned advocates may take photographs of such portions of the building as they may think proper on the site. The inspection will be carried out on the date and time jointly agreed to by the learned counsel."

2. This order was challenged before a Division Bench of the High Court which passed the impugned order in limine on November 9, 1989 reading "Dismissed". Hence this SLP.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenged the impugned order on several ground - firstly, a Senior Advocate could not be permitted to visit the spot and take the photographs of the site, in support of which argument he drew our attention to Chapter I of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules under the caption "Restrictions on Senior Advocates". Secondly, the production of the photographs sought to be taken by the advocate would embarrass the court hearing the matter and prejudice the petitioner-plaintiff. Thirdly, as the respondent-defendants have not produced at or before the settlement of issues the documentary evidence which they now seek to produce, they should not be permitted to file those documents and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench is in violation of Rule 21(1) of Order XIII. Fourthly, the documents which the respondent seek to produce are not in existence but they have to be created on the permission of the court. Fifthly, relying on the decision of the full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nadella Satyanarayana v. Yamanoori Venkata Subbiah (AIR 1957 AP 172 : 1957 Andh LT 369 : (1957) 1 Andh WR 318), it has been contended that the counsel cannot create and present a document on behalf of his client unless he is authorised in this behalf.

4. Mr. Parekh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants vehemently opposes the above plea on the following grounds, namely,

(1) As the order impugned is an interlocutory order, this Court does not, as a matter of rule, interfere with such order, save under very exceptional circumstances.

(2) Secondly, the grounds now newly urged were not raised by the petitioner-plaintiff either before the learned Single Judg