The production of a certified copy of the record-of-rights is a mandatory requirement under Section 112(1) of the Berar Land Revenue Code and failure to produce it without sufficient cause would result in the dismissal of the suit.

Deo, J—This is Plaintiffs appeal against the dismissal of their suit by the lower appellate Court on a preliminary point that a certified copy c the record-of-rights relating to the land in suit was not filed by the Plaintiffs.

2. The Plaintiffs have made an application here under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure for admission of a certified copy on the ground that the Court would require the said document to enable it to pronounce judgment. The application also states that there was sufficient cause for not producing it in the trial Court, but no facts are alleged why the document was not produced in the first Court or before the lower appellate Court though the document was all along in the Plaintiffs' possession. The plaint was presented on 11-8-49. An supplication for certified copy was made on 18-8-49 and the copy was obtained on 1-9-49 well before the date of first hearing in the trial Court.

The Appellants, however, have alleged that the copy was not filed in the trial Court as it was not necessary because.

(a) the suit was merely for injunction and

(b) the immovable property involved was not land under cultivation.

As defined in Section 2(7), Berar Land Revenue Code, land means a portion of the earth's surface and, where such land is referred to in the law, it shall be deemed to include all things attached to or permanently fastened to anything attached to such land.

It is thus clear that 'land' includes even the superstructures erected on it. There is no scope for the argument that the term 'land' in Section 112(1) is restricted to agricultural land and that the words ''every suit'' in that section does not include a suit for injunction. I, therefore, hold that the application made to this Court does not disclose any sufficient cause for not producing the document in the trial Court.

3. Although on the date of presentation of the plaint the learned Judge directed the Plaintiffs to produce the certified copy, non-compliance of this order was not noticed in the trial Court. The Defendants did not take any objection. The Plaintiffs obtained a decree in that Court. In the grounds of appeal also this point was not raised. There is nothing in the order sheets of the appellate Court or in the judgment under appeal to show that this omission was brought to the notice of the Appellants. It appears that at the time of writing the judgment the lower appellate Court noticed this omission and dismissed the suit for that omission.

4. In - Tanba v. Rama' S.A. No. 672 of 1937 D./- 30-8-1939 (Nag)(A), Grille J. held that in view of Section 112(1), Berar Land Revenue Code the trial Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit unless the certified copy was produced and the Court was bound to dismiss the suit for failure to do so. Section 112(2) runs thus:

If the Plaintiff or Applicant fails so to do for any cause which the Court deems sufficient, he shall produce such certified copy within a reasonable time to be fixed by the Court; and if such certified copy is not so produced, the suit or application shall be dismissed but the dismissal thereof shall not of its own force preclude the presentation of a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action or of a fresh application in respect of the same subject-matter.

The production of a certified copy is not essential for decision of any suit. This is a procedural provision which does not affect the merits of the case. If the Plaintiff fails to produce the certified copy on or before the first hearing as required by Section 112(1), he can assign a cause which the Court may deem sufficient for his failure to produce the copy and the Court may grant him reasonable time for its production.

Though the decision in - S.A. No. 672 of 1937, D/- 30-8-1939 (Nag)(A)', is expressed in very wide terms and was obiter as the appeal failed on merits, the learned Judge really meant to say that if no cause is assigned by the Plaintiff for failure to produce the copy which the Court may deem