Documents produced by a witness are admissible under Section 163 of the Evidence Act if they are the plaintiff's documents and have been filed in court at the plaintiff's instance.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. and also Article 227 of the constitution. It arises in the following circumstances :

( 2 ) THE opposite party, Firm Vishudh Ghee Vyopar Mandal, filed a suit in the Court of the Civil judge, Agra, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,90,423/6/- as the price of ghee supplied to the applicant, the Union of India, for damages for breach of a contract and for refund of the security deposited by it with the Union of India.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the applicant the Union of India, on the ground that the opposite party had supplied adulterated ghee and the adulteration was brought about by fraud practised by the opposite party on the Union of India and the opposite party was not entitled to the money claimed.

( 4 ) IT appears that prior to the suit there was some investigation by the Special Police establishment created under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act 25 of 1946): into the matter. The Special Police took away certain correspondence that had passed between the parties inter se or between them and their agents and certain documents from the possession of the opposite party. In the suit filed by the opposite party an application was made by it, asking the Court to direct the applicant, Union of India, to produce the documents which the Special police had seized from its possession. That application was made on 31-8-1951. It was stated therein that the Special Police Establishment had taken away most of the documentary evidence upon which the plaintiff could and should rely and they were still in their possession, that with a view to find which particular documents the plaintiff should produce in the case it was necessary to inspect all those documents which were in the possession of the Special Police Establishment, that the Special Police Establishment was not prepared to permit inspection of the documents aforesaid to the plaintiff and that an order of the Court was necessary to secure an inspection of the documents above-mentioned. To this application a reply was given on behalf of the Union of india to the effect that the inspection prayed for by the plaintiff could not be ordered as the documents were in the possession of the Special Police Establishment and not of the Union of india and that the plaintiff could summon the documents by the usual procedure provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure. The position that the Union of India took up at that stage was that the Special Police Establishment was not under its control. The plaintiff, however, again insisted that the Special Police Establishment was under the control of the Union Government and that an order for production of the documents should be made. At a later stage, however, the plaintiff made an application that the documents in the possession of the Special Police Establishment may be summoned in the ordinary course and that, after inspection, it would tender such documents as its evidence as it considered necessary. Summonses were issued to the Inspector general and the Superintendent of the Special Police Establishment on 17-12-1951, directing them to produce the documents concerned on 2-1-1952. On that date, however, the documents were not produced in Court upon which the plaintiff applied that a commissioner might be appointed to bring the documents before the Court or in the alternative the Court might be pleased to order that, if the papers were not produced as per order of the Court, the defendant would be penalised. It added that the defendant was in default by not having complied with the order. The Court thereupon passed an order directing that such documents be produced in Court within three weeks. In compliance with the order of the Court the Superintendent of the Special police Establishment sent the papers to Court through one of his officers on or about 20-1-1952. The papers having been filed in Court, the plaintiff inspected them in the usual