( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by an order in la. No. 220 of 2003 in O. S. No. 251 of 2000 dated 31. 3. 2003 on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram the unsuccessful petitioner-plaintiff filed this present revision under Article 227 of the constitution of India. From the order it appears that the above mentioned LA. was filed invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of CPC. Under the above mentioned IA, the petitioner wanted to tender two documents in evidence at the time of the trial of the above mentioned suit. One of the documents is an alleged notice dated 17. 10. 2003 issued by an Advocate on behalf of the defendants in the suit and the second document is the typed copy of an alleged partition deed said to have been supplied to the petitioner by the defendants in O. S. No. 130 of 1966 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kakinada.

( 2 ) BY the impugned order, the above mentioned IA was allowed and in the language of the Trial Court as follows : "petition is allowed on condition that the petitioner shall pay for costs of Rs. 100. 00 and copy of legal notice to be received in the evidence and typed copy of partition deed cannot be received as secondary evidence as it is not shown that the original partition deed is in possession of the opposite party. Hence, Secondary evidence is inadmissible under Section 65 (a) Part I of Indian Evidence act. Costs paid the petition is allowed accordingly. " aggrieved by that portion of the order by which the Trial Court declined to receive the second document referred to above in evidence, the present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of india.

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY the said document is not a document in original, but a typed copy, the whereabouts of the original of are not disclosed by the petitioner to the Court. From the order, it appears the trial of the suit has already commenced. The petitioner was examined in chief. Thereafter, he took several adjournments and came up with the present LA. Order 7, Rule 14 as amended by Act 46 of 1999 which came into force from 1. 7. 2002 reads as follows : "14` Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies : (1) 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. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. " an analysis of the scheme of Order 7 discloses the following:

( 4 ) ORDER 7 deals with the plaint, the contents of the plaint, return or rejection of the plaint etc. Rule 14 mandates that whenever a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon a document as the basis of his claim in the suit, the document is required to be deliver to the Court along with the plaint if the said document is in possession of the plaintiff. Rule 2 provides for the contingency where such a document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, the said sub-rule stipulates that the plaintiff has disclosed as to in whose possession such a document is. Sub-rule (3) creates an embargo on the reception of any such document in evidence which is not produced along with the plaint in accordance with the provision contained under Rule 14 (