Documents of which inspection can be had under Order 11, R 15. Civil procedure Code, do not include documents which are merely mentioned in the list filed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 (2) of the Code.

S. BARMAN, J.

( 1 ) THE point for consideration in this Civil Revision filed by the defendants is; Are the defendants entitled to have inspection of the documents which are mentioned in the list filed under the provision of Order 7 Rule 14 (2) of the Civil Procedure code? The question arose thus: On September 1963 plaintiffs filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage bond dated 15-6-1920 against the defendants including the mortgagees defendants. 2, 3 and 16 who are petitioners in this Civil revision. In the plaint after verification a list of documents including 9 items was annexed. The description of these Hems of documents included in the list was not clear. For reference the list as annexed to the plaint is quoted as follows: "the documents to be relied upon: 1. Plaint of Gangaprasad if available from court record

( 2 ) COPIES of records of Civil Court.

( 3 ) SETTLEMENTS Parcha in respect of Khunti Nos. 30 and 68 of mouza Deharipally.

( 4 ) SALE deed executed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff no. 3.

( 5 ) COPY of notice sent by plaintiffs to defendant No 2 through mukhtar.

( 6 ) REPLY of Sri J. Panigrahi, Advocate.

( 7 ) POSTAL receipts of M. O. of Rs. 100/- and return of the same postal acknowledgment.

( 8 ) COPIES of orders of Criminal Court is available.

( 9 ) MORTGAGE deed relating to suit lands in custody of Defendant no. 1 or 21.

"2. The defendants sought for clarification of items 1 and 2 of the said list of documents relied upon by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs gave clarification of the said 2 items, by giving the suit No. and other particulars. Thereafter the defendants gave notice to the plaintiffs under Order 11, Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code for inspection The plaintiffs replied that the defendants were not entitled to inspection be cause they are not referred to in the plain I. Thereupon the defendants applied to the Court under Order 11, Rule 18 for directing the plaintiffs to give inspection. The learned Trial Court dismissed the said application. Hence the Civil Revision. 3. The point is: Are the defendants entitled to inspection of these documents? On the question the views are divergent. The view of the Madras High Court is this: "the only reasonable way of reading Order 7, Rule 14, with Order 11, rule 15, is to hold that the expression "referred to" is equivalent to "entered in the list. " For this purpose the list must be deemed to be part of the plaint and consequently inspection can be granted of documents entered in a list attached to the plaint. " the Calcutta High Court on the other band held the contrary view namely that-"a defendant is not entitled, as of right to inspect documents relied on by the plaintiff and of which a list under Rule 14, Order 7 is annexed to the plaint as such documents arc not documents referred to in Order 11, Rule 16 of the Code. " ramnathan Chettier v. Annamalai Chettier, AIR 1931 Mad 825; and Chandmull goneshmal v. Dhanraj, AIR 1920 Cal 416 4. With great respect, I do not accept the Madras view In my opinion the documents of which inspection can be had must be referred to in the pleadings or affidavits. This point was argued at length on behalf of both sides by referring to the decisions of the different High Courts in support of their respective contentions. A subsequent Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court held as follows r:-" documents of which inspection can be had under Order 11, R 15. Civil procedure Code, do not include documents which are merely mentioned in the list filed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 (2) of the Code. On the question as to what is meant by the expression "referred to" occurring in Order 11. Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code there has been a divergence of judicial opinion. The documents which are sued upon or the effect whereof is merely mentioned in the pleadings must be distinguished from other documents oh which a party relies merely as evidence in support of his case. In other words, the do