3. Considering the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court finds, there is no dispute that there is clear pleading in the plaint that the plaintiff agreed to the fact that there is existence of such document namely Chela Patra in favour of the defendant no.4 and the defendant no.4 brings the fact of availability of such document with the Endowment Commissioner in written statement and in the process the Endowment Commissioner submitted not possessing such document. In the circumstance, it appears, there was no other scope for the trial Court than to direct the defendant no.4 to produce such document. It is, at this stage of the matter, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently objecting the intimation of the Endowment Commissioner, submitted that the original document is very much available in the Office of the Endowment Commissioner. There is, however, no denial of having a copy of the Chela Patra by the defendant no.4. For the provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, assembly of documents required for the just decision of the suit prior to framing of the issues or in the worse at least prior to commencement of the trial, in the event the original is neither available
