1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5718/2008 Ratan Kumar Talreja Versus Additional District Judge No.2, Kota & Another Date of Order :: 11th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma for the petitioner Mr. Ashwani Chobisa for the respondent no.2 BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Chobisa appears for respondent no.2, who is contesting respondent. Service of respondent no.1 is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the impugned order dated 17th May, 2008, whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC for taking the additional documents on record has been rejected by the trial court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the matter was fixed in the trial court for plaintiff's evidence and before cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, he moved an application alongwith certain 2 documents to take the same on record. The delay in filing the application was also explained in the application. He contended that the trail court has rejected the application only on the ground that these documents are not relevant, therefore, they cannot be taken on record. He also contended that the provisions relating to Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC are procedural in nature, which should have been construed liberally by the trial court, therefore, the order passed by the trial court be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents no.2 defended the impugned order passed by the trial court and contended that when the documents in dispute are not relevant in the present case, then the same should not be allowed to be taken on record. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The trial court has observed that the present suit is a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 14.2.2003. The suit has been filed on 18.4.2007. The documents sought to be produced relating to illness of wife of the plaintiff are related to 3 the period July, 2006. The trial court has observed that there is no relevancy of the said documents. He has also also assigned reasons for not taking on record the notice dated 28th November, 2006. There is no dispute in between both the parties that the matter is fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses and before cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, the application was filed. Normally all the documents are annexed with the plaint itself but the same can be filed subsequently also with the permission of th court. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 is reproduced as under: “A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” 7. The above quoted sub-rule clearly shows that no reason for delay and the relevancy of the documents is required to be given. Although it is a matter relating to discretion of the trial court, but discretion has to be exercised judiciously. The procedural law should be construed liberally. The opposite 4 party is not going to suffer anything and his case is not going to be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. If the documents are not relevant, then they will not come in support of the plaintiff's case at the time of final hearing of the case. 8. In view of above, I am satisfied that the trial court has committed an illegality in not allowing the application of the plaintiff at this stage. The application ought to have been allowed and the same is hereby allowed. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court dated 17th May, 2008 is set-aside. The application filed by plaintiff petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC dated 4th March, 2008 is allowed and the documents filed with the application are ordered to be taken on record at the cost of Rs. 1000/-, which will be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant within a period of three weeks from today, failing which th said documents will not be taken on record. 9. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK