S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 20.3.2013 in Title Suit No. 452 of 2012, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 452 of 2012. A suit was instituted on 10.9.2012 and the plaintiff deposited adequate court -fees and second copy of the plaint. After the institution of the suit opportunity was granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to file original documents and, subsequently plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that original documents were not filed along with the plaint. It is further submitted that the suit can be dismissed on the ground that the claim of the plaintiff is not supported by documentary evidence however, after the institution of the suit, the trial court cannot dismiss the suit at the initial stage itself on the ground that original documents were not filed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that Order VII, Rule 14 CPC provides that at the time of presentation of plaint, the plaintiff is required to produce the document in his possession upon which the claim is based. It is submitted that though the impugned order dated 20.3.2013 refers that the plaint is rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, the order is, in fact, passed under Order VII, Rule 14 CPC and therefore, it suffers from no infirmity.;