A suit cannot be dismissed for non-compliance of the directions of Order 9, Rule 14, C. P. C. and at best the Court could draw an adverse inference because of non-production of the documents by the plaintiff.

( 1 ) CIVIL Revision No. 20 of 1990 connected with Civil Revisions Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of 1990 have been filed against the order of the Civil Judge, Etawah in four connected suits on four applications moved by the plaintiff-opposite party State Bank of India for setting aside the four orders dated 21-8-1987 passed under Order 11, Rule 11, C. P. C. As all the four revisions raise similar facts and questions of law the same are being disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts for the purposes of deciding the aforesaid revisions are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, State Bank of India, filed four suits in the year 1986 against the defendants for recovery of money which had been advanced to the defendants on the basis of agreements which had been executed between the parties. Applications were moved in the suit by the defendants numbered as 31-C on the ground that the plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of money against the defendants and in the plaint has mentioned about the agreement and the mortgage which are the basis of the suit and those documents have not been filed. It was mentioned that without seeing those papers it was not possible for the defendants to file written statement. According to the defendants the plaintiff has not given the copies of the documents and it is necessary that those documents be got filed in the court. In the prayer it was mentioned that the following documents be summoned from the plaintiff:- (I) Form c Agreement dated 24-2-1983; (ii) Balance sheet of cash credit limit; (iii) Guarantee deed dated 24-12-1983; (iv) D. P. Note and Delivery letter dated 24-12-1983; (v) Title deed dated 8-5-1985; (vi) Letter Dated 10-5-1985; (vii) Account Books; and (viii) Balance Sheet and Public Auction.

( 3 ) THE aforesaid application was moved on 16-7-1987. On the aforesaid application it was written that a copy has been received and the prayer made in the application is opposed and prayer was made that the time be given to file objections as today is the date fixed for issues. On 16-7-1987 itself the Court passed the order that as the agreement deed etc. had not been filed and directed the plaintiff to file agreement deed etc. The application of the defendants for giving copies was rejected and it was ordered that the plaintiff can inspect the documents. The plaintiff was directed to file the documents by 30-7-1987. The defendant was asked to file a written statement by 14-8-1987 and the case was ordered to be listed on 21-8-1987 for framing of issues. On 30-7-1987 the Court noted that the plaintiff has not filed any papers and the case be listed on the date fixed. On 14-8-1987 an application was moved by the defendants for dismissing the suit due to non-compliance of Courts order dated 16-7-1987. The Court ordered that the defendant himself has not complied with the orders of the Court and did not file written statement. Put up on the date fixed.

( 4 ) ON the date fixed i. e. 21-8-1987 the case was called out. The Court observed in the order that it was 12-20 p. m. and none was present on behalf of the plaintiff. 33-C the application moved by the defendant was heard. On the application the Court passed the following order:-"the plaintiff has not filed the agreement deed despite specific order dated 16-7-1987 in this regard. The said deed is the basis of the suit and it ought to have been filed along with the plaint. The order dated 16-7-1987 makes a clear indication that this document was necessary in order to enable the defendant to file his W. S. but the plaintiff ignored the directions of the Court and failed to file it by due date i. e. 30-7-1987 and even when the defendants moved present application 33-C-copy of which has already been given the plaintiff did not take care to file the said document. It appears from the conduct of the plaintiff that it does not want to file the said basis of suit and also intend to flout the order of the Court in order to delay the proceedings with