Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner who is the original defendant is challenging the order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao in Special Civil Suit No. 58/2013/III. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner for exhibiting certain documents has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts are that the petitioner served a notice to admit the documents, on the respondents under Order 12 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. The notice was served on or about 18.11.2014. The documents which the petitioner wanted the respondents to admit are some letters by the petitioner to the respondents which are in excess of a thousand communications. It is further undisputed that the respondents did not specifically deny the said documents. In that view of the matter, an application came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner on 15.01.2015, placing reliance on Order 12 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. It was contended that in terms of the provisions of Order 12 Rule 2A of the C.P.C., as the documents were not