JUDGMENT

Coldstream, J. - The firm Chuni Lal-Panna Lal obtained a money decree against the firm Kanshi Ram-Ram Nath on 24th February 1927 and in execution attached a shop in Narowal. Maya Dhari brother of Ram Nath lodged an objection alleging the shop to be his own. His objection was dismissed on 13th April 1928 and he instituted the usual declaratory suit in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge of Sialkot against this decree however impleading Ram Nath the judgment-debtor. It was contended before the Senior Subordinate Judge that the judgment-debtor ought to have been proceeded against as the firm Kanshi Ram-Ram Nath but the objection was overruled. The Subordinate Judge found it proved that Maya Dhari had separated from his brother Ram Nath before the date of the decree and that the shop attached had in partition become the property of Maya Dhari. He accordingly gave the latter the declaration he sought. This decision was reversed on appeal by the District Judge of Sialkot who dismissed Maya Dhari's suit. The present appeal is by Maya Dhari against this judgment.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge in coming to his decision had relied on the evidence of a memorandum dated 5th December 1926 setting forth the properties allotted to Maya Dhari, Ram Nath and their two brothers which in his opinion did not require registration to be admissible, and on a registered mortgage deed dated 17th December 1926 in which reference was made to the partition. The originals of these documents were among the records of the execution proceedings which had been called for at the instance of Ram Nath along with the record of proceedings following a petition for insolvency presented by Ram Nath in May 1927. The documents had not however been admitted or proved. As regards this evidence the learned District Judge remarked that these documents had not been proved or produced at the trial and that the memorandum had not been called in evidence.

3. For the appellant it has been contended before us that he did his best to bring the documents on the record by repeated applications to the Subordinate Judge who did requisition the record of the execution proceedings and the insolvency petition and that the appellant was led into the belief that this was all that was necessary for him to do. The actual documents on which the appellant relied were specified in a list put into Court on the 8th October without an affidavit and in his applications of 17th May and 23rd May 1928. Similarly on 23rd May 1928 the decree-holder's counsel stated, that he relied on certain receipts which were on the record of the insolvency proceedings and on 27th October 1928 defendant 1 asked for the execution proceedings to be called for as he wished to prove certain deeds that were upon it.

4. The mere summoning by the Court of a record containing a document relied on by a party will not absolve that party from the duty of placing that document by formal admission or proof upon the record of the trial for which it is required as evidence. The correct procedure for the party relying on a document not in his possession but of which a copy can be got by him is to produce the copy. If the copy is admitted by the opposite party the original need not be produced. If it is not admitted or if it is still necessary to produce the original for technical proof then the party must make an application in strict accordance with Rule 10, Order 13, Civil P.C., specifying the documents required. Application for summoning records of a case or the file of a suit should be rejected unless the affidavit satisfies the Court that copies of the specified documents cannot be produced without un reasonable delay or expense or that the production of the originals is necessary.

5. In this case it appears from his judgment that the learned Subordinate Judge himself assumed that formal proof or admission was not necessary and led the parties to understand that all the documents on the record requisitioned would be eviden