( 1 ) THIS is the defendants revision petition challenging the order dated 26-9-1992 passed in I. A. No. 154 of 1992 in O. S. No. 648/1990 on the file of V Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners streneously contended that the impugned order passed by the Court below is illegal and without jurisdiction. He further contended that when summary procedure is invoked under Order 37 CPC the plaintiff could not have been allowed to produce documents under order 13, Rule 2 C. P. C. read with Sec. 151 C. P. C. He further contended that order 13, Rule 2 CPC does not apply to the facts of this case nor Sec. 151 C. P. C. could be invoked in the case. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners streneously contended that the impugned order is one without jurisdiction. He further submitted that when the respondent/plaintiff invoked the procedure under Order 37 CPC the proceedings have got to be completed only in accordance with this order and as such, Order 13, Rule 2 CPC is not available for the plaintiff to produce the documents. He also relied upon the decisions in Punjab and Sind Bank vs. Ramjit Das Khanna and another P. N. Films Ltd. and others vs. Overseas Films Corporation Ltd. : and Subash Raina vs. Suraj Prakash and ultimately submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supported the judgment and order of the Court below.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for both sides, it is necessary to note the brief facts of this case. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

( 5 ) THE respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,21,416-32 ps. out of which Rs. 3,21,663-92 ps. is an amount already acknowledged by the defendants and the balance amount of Rs. 1,99,752-40 ps. is towards interest outstanding as on 31-5-1990. The suit was filed by the plaintiff invoking the summary procedure under Order 37 C. P. C. The defendants, after service of summons, have entered into appearance and sought the leave of the Court to defend the suit by filing LA. Nos. 1101 to 1104 of 1990. It is at that point of time, the respondent-plaintiff filed I. A. No. 154 of 1992 seeking the leave of the Court to produce certain documents with an application for condonation of delay. It is stated in the LA. that the plaintiff was seeking permission of the Court to produce certain documents in view of the contentions raised by the defendants in the said I. As. seeking leave to defend the suit. The I. A. No. 154/1992 was opposed by the defendants on the ground that the documents could have been filed at the time of presentation of the suit and the plaintiff could not cure the defect this stage by filing the documents. They further contended that no reasonable cause is made out in not filing the documents at the time of presentation of the suit and there are laches on the part of the plaintiff and accordingly prayed that this I. A. No. 154/92 should be dismissed.

( 6 ) THE Court below, after hearing both sides, has allowed I. A. No. 154/92 of the plaintiff by condoning the delay in filing the said LA. imposing cost of Rs. 50/- by passing the impugned order, which is questioned by the defendants in this revision.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants contended that the provisions of Order 13, Rule 2 CPC could not be invoked for production of the documents in view of Order 37, Rules 1 to 7 CPC which provide a special procedure for disposing of the suit by way of summary procedure when the same is so adopted by tine plaintiff. Therefore the Court below could not have invoked the provisions of Order 13, R. 2 C. P. C. He further contended that Order 37 excludes the other provisions of C. P. C. His second submission is that under Order 37, Rule 3 CPC it is mandatory on the part of the plaintiff to send the plaint and annexures along