N. Kumar, J.

1. This is a plaintiffs writ petition challenging the order passed by the Trial Court permitting the defendant to mark an unregistered sale deed and also permitting him to pay stamp duty and penalty in respect of the said document. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and for possession of the plaint schedule property. Defendants have filed a written statement contesting the claim. Issues have been framed. The plaintiff has produced both oral and documentary evidence and closed his side. Defendants also have adduced evidence. Thereafter, the defendants' counsel wanted to produce some unregistered sale deeds and wanted to mark them. The plaintiffs counsel objected for the same on the ground that the documents are not duly stamped. They are also unregistered and the way it is produced is not in accordance with law. The Trial Court after referring to various judgments of this Court proceeded to hold that an unregistered document could be marked for collateral purpose. There is no absolute bar for marking the documents. Insofar as the document not being duly stamped, is concerned, the Trial Court said that the Court can impound the document and direct the party to pay duty and penalty. Therefore, it has impounded the document directing payment of duty and penalty and thereafter it wants to mark the document. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contends that when once both the parties have concluded their evidence, a party cannot just produce a document before the Court and request the Court to mark the same. Unfortunately, the Trial Court has given a go by to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and has received the documents and now wants to mark the documents. Therefore, he submits that the procedure adopted by the Trial Court is contrary to the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the order is unsustainable.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that it is true that the Trial Court has not followed the procedure prescribed under the law.

4. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the question for consideration before the Court is, what is the procedure prescribed under law for production of documents especially after the amendment to Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002.

5. This production of documents in a Civil suit at different stages of the proceedings was found to be the cause for delay in disposal of suits. Therefore, the Parliament taking note of this aspect of the matter amended the Code of Civil Procedure extensively by Act 46/1999 which came into effect from 01.07.2002. The first thing they did was to omit Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provided for production of documents at any stage of proceedings if, the party producing the documents showed good cause for non-production of document. Simultaneously, they amended Order 7 and substituted Rule 14which reads as under:

14. Documents relied on in Plaint.- 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 documents 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 f