CMPMO Nos. 178 & 179 of 2007. 6.4.2009 Present: Mr. Navlesh Verma, counsel for the petitioners. Sh. K.S.Banyal, counsel for respondents 1 to 4 in CMPMO 178 of 2007. Sh. Ajay Sharma, counsel for respondent No. 5 in CMPMO 178 of 2007 and for respondent No. 4 in CMPMO 179 of 2007. Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common order since these involve common questions of law and fact. The plaintiff has approached this Court against the order passed by the learned trial Court in an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to place on record documents which are in the nature of applications etc. submitted before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Barsar in partition proceedings between the same parties. The application was resisted on a number of grounds and the learned trial Court by its order dated 15.6.2007 disallowed the application holding that since the plaintiff – petitioner had closed his evidence on 13.5.2005 and the application(s) /documents which relate to March, 2004 were in possession of the applicant-plaintiff and permission cannot be granted because production of these documents is -2- nothing but a ploy to prolong the trial. This reasoning of the learned trial Court cannot be accepted. Needless to say that mere production of the documents does not constitute proof of the fact(s) sought to be proved. The fact(s) has to be established in accordance with the law. True, delay can be a factor which can be taken into consideration for the purposes of allowing or disallowing a particular application but that cannot in all cases be construed as the sole factor which would disentitle a petitioner from producing documents at a late stage. The nature of the documents has also to be considered. In this case, what I find is that the documents which are sought to be produced relate to partition proceedings between the parties. Moreover, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents as they will be granted full opportunity by the learned trial Court to place on record such other or further documents / evidence in support of their case as would be available to them in law. Both these petitions are accordingly allowed. The order passed by the learned trial Court in both these petitions is quashed and set aside. The application(s) filed by the petitioner(s) in both these cases -3- are allowed. The trial Court shall grant an opportunity to the respondents to lead such other/ further evidence both oral and documentary in rebuttal to the documents produced on the record. The parties shall appear before the learned trial Court on 4.5.2009. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of and interim order(s) vacated. The record of the Court(s) below be sent back forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. April 6, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.