For the order I propose to pass in this civil revision, reference to the pleaded facts would not be necessary. Suffice it to say that the respondents tiled a suit claiming that registered sale-deed dated 12-3-1963 and the mutation based thereon are fraudulent and ineffective upon the rights of the respondents. The plea was denied by the petitioners. Issues were framed on 6-6-1993 and the case was being adjourned for recording evidence of the petitioners when on 28-9-1993 an application was filed under Order XI, rule 12, C.P.C. for an order directing the respondents to produce the original sale-deed. The application was replied on 12-12-1994 wherein it was stated that the document was destroyed during 1965 War and is not in possession of the respondents.
Vide order dated 28-3-1995 the learned trial Court proceeded to direct the respondents to produce a certified copy of the sale-deed on 29-3-1995. On this date the respondents were absent. They were that proceeded against ex parte and the learned trial Court adjourned the case to 2-4-1995 to consider the effect of non-compliance of the said order dated 28-3-1995. Vide order dated 2-4- 1995 the learned trial Court proceeded to strike off the defence of the respondents and to decree the suit of the respondents. On 4-4-1995 the petitioners tiled an appeal against the said order and decree which was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 23-4-1995.
2. A bare reading of the impugned proceedings and order and decrees would show that they are wholly without lawful authority. Under Order XI rule 12. C.P C. a party can apply for discovery only regarding the documents which are in possession or power of the other party and the Court is thereafter to proceed accordingly. In fact the entire Order XI, C.P.C. relating to discovery, production and inspection proceed on the said basis. There is no provision of C.P.C. and no provision of any other law which warrants an order of the impugned nature. No party can be called upon to produce a document which is not in its possession or power. Certified copies of public documents can be obtained by any member of the public on payment of usual charges and complying with the requisite procedures. I, therefore, find the order dated 28-3-1995 of the learned trial Court is wholly without jurisdiction. The penalty imposed upon the petitioners for non-compliance of the said orders i.e. striking off their defence and decretal of the. suit against them cannot be justified under any principle of law or equity. This civil revision accordingly is allowed. The orders, judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below are set aside. The result would be that the suit filed by the respondents against the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore where the parties shall appear on 24-4-2002. The learned Senior Civil Judge shall commence proceedings at the stage they were before passing of the said order dated 28-3-1995 and decide the suit in accordance with law. before 30-11-2002. No order as to costs.
3. Copy of this order be immediately remitted to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore.