Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The question for consideration is, whether it is permissible in law to permit a party to a civil suit to file only photocopy of the document and exempt such party from placing the original document on the file of the court and merely to give inspection thereof to the opposite party at the time of admission/denial of documents and at the time of tendering the document into evidence and to put the Exhibit mark again on photocopy on the file of the court.

2. The plaintiffs in this suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark passing off etc. and for the ancillary reliefs of damages, delivery etc. have applied to permit the plaintiffs to rely on the photocopies and to produce the originals only for inspection at the time of admission/denial of documents. It is contended that the plaintiffs have filed only copies, as original documents are required in various litigations globally and hence it is not possible to file the original documents in this court.

3. The defendants have contested the application by pleading that the prayer made therein is not maintainable in law; under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC the plaintiffs are required to file with the plaint documents on which they rely or sue; under Order 13 Rule 1 the parties are required to produce on or before the settlement of issues all the documents/evidence in original where the copies thereof had been filed along with the plaint; that the plaintiffs are thus not entitled to seek exemption from filing the original documents; that the production of the original documents is a mandatory requirement of law not only under CPC but under the Evidence Act as well as the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs have to prove their case by primary evidence on record and if photocopies are produced, it is not possible for the defendants to compare those with the originals. On merits, it is denied that the original documents are required as alleged by the plaintiffs and it is further contended that it is open to the plaintiffs to apply for certified copies of the documents, on the same being proved/exhibited.

4. The Counsel for the plaintiffs has in his submissions, relied on

A] The Mullas CPC 17th Edition Volume-II Page 694 where in the commentary under Order 13 Rule 1 it is stated:

The word "produce" means not that the documents should be filed into the court, but that they should be with the parties in the court. This rule does not exclude the discretion of the court to receive documentary evidence at a subsequent stage of the proceedings.

For the first proposition aforesaid reference therein is made to Talewar Singh v. Bhagwan Dass (1908) 12 C WN 312.

B] The Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 1987 Edition wherein it is stated:

"TO PRODUCE" a thing or document to a person, means, to show it to him personally and does not involve the idea that the possession of it is to be parted with (as) a Railway passengers duty to produce the ticket for inspection by the ticket examiner.

It has further been stated therein:

"Produced" is a word which has not got any exact legal meaning but which requires to have an interpretation placed upon it in the statute in which it is used. The requirement that something must be produced to the court does not mean that it must be physically produced in the court room. "Produced" means that the objects to which the order is going to be related must be properly identified as being the objects which were concerned in the offence and they must be available for the court to look at, if it wishes to do so.

C] Prem Kumari v. Sushil Kumari : AIR 2000 Rajasthan 415 dismissing the revision against the order of the Trial Court exhibiting the photocopies. It was found that the photo stat copies were duly compared and produced prior to the issues and the original had been produced at the time of recording of the evidence; in these circumstances, the putting of the Exhibit marks