1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner – original plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 10-1-2013 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2012 whereby the said appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 – defendant no.1 under provisions of order XLIII Rule 1(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) has been allowed and the suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed under provisions of Order XI Rule 21 of the Code.

3. The facts relevant for adjudication of the challenge raised in the writ petition are that the petitioner is an Association of Trusts of Northern India constituted under the Companies Act, 1913. It is also registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The suit property consisting of a structure on the land owned by the petitioner was in occupation of the respondents. According to the petitioner, the said respondents had no right to continue in occupation of the suit property and hence, it filed Special Civil Suit No.103/2004 for ejectment of the respondents and possession thereof. The respondents filed their written statement opposing the prayers made in the suit. According to the defendants, the plaintiff had no locus to file the said suit and seek their eviction.

4. The power of attorney holder filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence on behalf of the petitioner. He was then cross-examined by the Counsel for the defendants. During the course of cross-examination, he was questioned about certain documents which according to the defendants had bearing on the adjudication of the suit. Hence at that stage the defendants moved an application on 10-11-2010 under provisions of Order XI Rule 21 read with Rule 14 of the Code (Exhibit-89). As per this application, the defendants called upon the plaintiff to produce eight documents which according to the defendants were necessary for further cross-examination of the witness. The plaintiff filed its reply to the aforesaid application on 11-1-2011. According to the plaintiff, the documents at Sr. Nos.1 and 2 alone were relevant documents while the other documents were not relevant for deciding the suit. On 2-7-2012, the power of attorney holder filed his affidavit in Form No.5 under provisions of Order XI Rule 13 of the Code. In the said affidavit, it was stated that a copy of the memorandum of association was being filed on record. In so far as the other documents were concerned, it was stated that the Head Office of the Company had been asked to verify about the possession of said documents and it was stated that the power of attorney holder would communicate with the Head Office in that regard. On 21-6-2012, the trial Court passed an order observing that production of the documents as mentioned by the defendants would be helpful in deciding the suit and hence, directed the plaintiff to file the documents as mentioned at Sr. Nos.1 to 8 within period of fifteen days from the date of the order.

5. On 30-7-2012, the defendant no.1 filed an application seeking dismissal of the suit under provisions of Order XI Rule 21 of the Code (Exhibit-99). In the said application, it was stated that though the trial Court had passed an order on 21-6-2012 directing production of the said documents, a vague affidavit along with some stray documents were filed on record. As the plaintiff committed breach of the aforesaid order, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed under provisions of Order XI Rule 21 of the Code. The plaintiff filed its reply (Exhibit-100) and stated that all the documents which were in its custody had been filed and as the remaining documents were not available with the plaintiff, there was no question of withholding the same from the Court. It was stated that the order dated 21-6-2012 had been complied with and hence, the suit could not be dismissed. The trial Court by order dated 24-8-2012 held that in compliance with the order dated 2-16-2012,