MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. - (1.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned Order it is noticed that the respondents-defendants, during the pendency of the suit, filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment in the written statement of defence, as also permission to file one document. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the application seeking amendment in the written statement of defence, but granted leave to the respondents-defendants to produce one document i.e. 'relinquish deed'. The petitioner-plaintiff has impugned the Order dated 28th August, 2008, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur granted leave to produce the said document in court.
(2.) As consistently held by this Court in catena of cases that even after filing the plaint and written statement of defence by the plaintiff and the defendants, as the case may be, the documents, which ought to be produced with the pleadings may be filed later on, but with the leave of the court. The language of the Order 7 Rule 14(3) as also of Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of Civil Procedure Code, tangibly suggest that even after filing the plaint or the written statement of defence, the documents, if are not filed, for one or the other reason, can be filed later on, but with the leave of the court alone. A bare perusal of these provisions prompts the court to take a liberal view in granting the leave for the production of documents in the court. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned Order nor the impugned Order is likely to result in manifesting injustice to the petitioner-plaintiff. Hence, the impugned Order is not required to be interfered with.
(3.) In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.;