JUDGMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In the year 1995, the respondent Shri Ram Adhar Sharma let out his flat bearing No. 11-C, Una Enclave, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091 (hereinafter referred to as the `suit premises') to the appellant at a rental of Rs. 3000/- per month, inclusive of electricity bill and maintenance charges of the UNA Cooperative Society (in short `the Society').

3. Now a suit has been filed by the respondent in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi for a decree for possession and also for a decree of Rs. 1,01,880/- with interest accrued thereon and for other reliefs.

4. On or about 27th of November, 2004, issues were framed by the trial Court and both the parties were directed to file list of witnesses/documents within 15 days from the aforesaid date. The parties went to trial and the respondent brought Sh.Pawan Kumar Vasudeva, the President of the UNA Cooperative Group Housing Society, within which the suit premises is located, who deposed as PW-3 and made the following statement in his examination:

I am the President of UNA Cooperative Group Housing Society. I have seen the document already exhibit as Ex.PW/1/3. I identify my signature on this document. I have produced the documents, the construction of society.

5. After closure of examination and cross-examination, the trial court closed his examination, but the witness Pawan Kumar Vasudeva-PW-3 sought permission of the court to file certain documents which was not allowed by the trial court on the ground that a witness could not be allowed to produce documents under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short `the Code') as the term "production", as mentioned in Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code shall mean that the witness can be summoned to bring the record to prove the documents placed on record by the parties to the suit and since the document in question was not produced by the respondent either along with the plaint or at the time of framing of issues, such document at that stage could not be taken on record.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid refusal to accept the document, as noted hereinabove, the respondent filed a revisional application before the High Court of Delhi and by the impugned order, the High Court had allowed production of the document and directed that the said document be taken on record. Before the High Court, a plea for rejection of the aforesaid prayer of the respondent was raised that a witness under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Rule 1-A of the Code cannot produce documents as it envisages that a witness can either adduce evidence or produce document in Court. As noted herein earlier, the High Court allowed the said document to be taken on record by allowing the revision setting aside the order of the trial Court.

7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the High Court, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned Counsel for the parties.

8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the provisions under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Rule 1-A of the Code, under which the document was directed to be produced and taken on record by the High Court by reversing the order of the trial Court refusing to take the document on record.

9. The trial Court, as noted herein earlier, refused the prayer for production of the document on a simple interpretation of the word "production" as used in Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code which, according to the trial Court, would mean that the witness can be summoned to bring the record to prove the documents placed on record by the parties to the suit, but in the present case, the said document was not produced by the respondent either along with the plaint or at the time of framing of issues and, therefore, no document can be taken on record at that stage.

10. In our view, the High Court was justified in permitting the document to be taken on record at the instance of the witness PW-3. It is not