A.N.Jindal, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.4.2008 passed on an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for production of the documents.

2. The apathy of the case is that the suit having been filed by Punjab Beverages Pvt. Limited for permanent injunction on 18.10.2007 is still at a rudimentary stage awaiting decision as to whether the plaintiff was liable to produce certain documents along with the plaint.

3. After the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner- plaintiff (herein referred as `the petitioner) on 18.10.2007, the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC was filed by the defendant-respondent (herein referred as `the respondent) on 16.11.2007 over which the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chandigarh, directed the petitioner to produce the required documents. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under :-

"...... Thus, the case of the plaintiff is based upon that they are Directors and one of the share holders of the plaintiff and in order to decide the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to direct to the plaintiff to produce the entire records in respect of share holders of the plaintiff company and Minutes book from the inception of the plaintiff company. Further more, it has been specifically mentioned in the application by the applicant- defendant that shares of original share holders particularly of the shares of Late Mohan Singh and his wife Laj Kaur. The share holding of other share holders have also been forged. In view of this, since the defendant has specifically challenged the appointment of Directors and that the documents of share holders of the plaintiff company have been forged and fabricated, therefore, it is essential for the adjudication of the present case to direct the plaintiff to produce these documents in the court in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present application filed by the applicant defendant under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure succeeds and the same is allowed and the plaintiff company is directed to produce the entire records i.e. record/file of share holding of the plaintiffcompany since its inception and minutes book of the plaintiff company since inception. Ordered accordingly."

4. Notwithstanding the fact that it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to produce the documents over which he places reliance. The defendant moved the application and the court ordered to produce those documents. Now the petitioner has agitated the order protesting that he is not required to produce all the documents.

5. The rule actually is not applicable to the defendant but it applies to the plaintiff and if he does not produce the documents over which he places reliance, of which he is in possession and power, at that time and if the same also is not included in the list, in that situation no such penalty upon the plaintiff for striking off the defence is provided. However, the only check for non compliance of order 7 Rule 14 CPC was earlier provided under Rule 18 of the said order. Now while deleting the said, the legislature has added sub-rule (3) and (4) in order 7 which are reproduced as under :-

"14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies - (1) xx xx xx

(2) xx xx xx xx xx

(3) The document which out 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 for the cross examination of the plaintiffs witness, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."

6. Thus, the document which the plaintiff failed to produce along with the plaint could not produce the same later except in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (3) or the document could also b