( 1 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order dated 4. 7. 2002 made in LA. No. 548 of 2000 in O. S. No. 182 of 1996 refusing to receive certain documents filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners.

( 2 ) THE petitioners field O. S. No. 182 of 1986 for perpetual in injunction. They also obtained an ad interim injunction, which was ultimately confirmed by this Court by ordering status quo in CRP No. 3857 of 1999 dated 27. 1. 2000. The petitioners examined P. Ws. 1 to 3 and closed their evidence. When the matter was coming up for the defence evidence, the petitioners filed I. A. No. 548 of 2000 under Rule 2 of Order XIII of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 ( cpc for brevity) praying the Court to receive the lease deed, sale deed and certified copies of the pahanies for the year 1971-74 by condoning the delay in filing the same. They alleged that the documents which were filed along with LA. No. 548 of 2000 were already filed before the Inams Tribunal duly paying the penalty and that originals were misplaced at the time of filing of the suit. As they were traced recently, the application was filed.

( 3 ) THE respondents/defendants opposed the application inter alia contending that the sale deed was never filed before the inams Tribunal and that the plaintiffs never mentioned about the documents in the plaint and other pleadings.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court on consideration of the rival contentions dismissed I. A. No. 548 of 2000 inter alia on the ground that the plaintiffs never mentioned about the document in the plaint or in the CMA filed earlier and that they failed to show sufficient cause to receive the documents at the belated stage.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents who reiterated the submissions made by the parties before the lower Court.

( 6 ) RULE 14 of Order VII as it stood prior to 1. 7. 2002 reads as under: 1. Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. List of other documents: where he relies on any other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint. "

( 7 ) THE above said provision was substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act) 1999 and after amendment it reads as under: 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 Where a document or a copy thereof is not filed with the plaint under this rule, it shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff 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.

( 8 ) SUB-RULE (3) of Rule 14 of order VII was again substituted and the following sub-rule (3) was inserted: 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.

( 9 ) THE CPC Amendment Act, 2002 and the CPC Amendment Act, 1999 came into force with effect from 1. 7. 2002. The law as it stands requires a plaintiff who relies or sues upon a document and who is in possession of such a docu