1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 30.8.2017 passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-II, Vidisha in COC No. 82-A/2015, by which the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC has been rejected and the trial Court has refused to take the partition deed on record on the ground that by order dated 14.6.2016, the petitioners were directed to file all the documents pertaining to their title and since they have failed to do, therefore, now they cannot be allowed to file the additional documents.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the plaintiffs/petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction as well as for enforcement of their easementary rights.

3. It appears that on an application filed by the respondents, the trial Court by order dated 14.6.2016, had directed the petitioners to file all the documents pertaining to their title and also to file an affidavit, otherwise, they would not be given any opportunity to file the same in view of section 164 of the Indian Evidence Act.

4. The petitioners did not file the partition deed in compliance of order dated 14.5.2016. However, later on, the petitioners filed an application under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC seeking leave of the Court to file a partition deed. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order by holding that the petitioners were already in possession of partition deed even on the date of order dated 14.6.2016, but the said order was not complied with, and no explanation has been given for not filing the documents on earlier occasion.

5. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that undisputedly, till 30.8.2017 no issues were framed even today, no issues have been framed so far. section 164 of the Evidence Act does not create an absolute bar. Similarly, the order under Order 7 rule 14(3) of CPC also gives discretion to the Court to grant leave to the plaintiff to file the documents at a later stage. The partition deed cannot be said to be a document of title and thus, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner has violated the order dated 14.6.2016. Thus, it is submitted that as earlier there was no direction to the petitioner to file the partition deed, therefore, the provision of section 164 of the Evidence Act would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Per contra,it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had failed to place all the necessary documents on record in compliance of the order dated 14.6.2016, therefore, the trial Court has not committed any mistake in refusing to grant leave to the petitioners to file the additional documents. However, it is fairly conceded by the counsel for the respondents that even till today, no issues have been framed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The order dated 14.6.2016 has not been placed on record, however, the copy of the same was provided to the Court. By order dated 14.6.2016, apart from the other documents, the petitioner was also directed to file all the documents relating to their title and it was observed that in case if there is any failure on the part of the petitioner to comply the order, then provision of section 164 of the Evidence Act would apply.

9. Before proceeding further, this Court feels it appropriate to consider the implication of section 164 of the Evidence Act which reads as under:-

''164.Using, as evidence, of document, production of which was refused on notice.-When a party refuses to produce a document which he has had notice to produce, he cannot afterwards use the document as evidence without the consent of the other party or the order of the Court.''

From the plain reading of section 164 of the Evidence Act, it is apparent that when a party refuses to produce a document which h