ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) These two petitions arise between the same parties challenging the order dated 10-9-2008 passed by the trial court Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereafter 'the trial court') in suit No.6/2007, titled M/s. Shri Ahimsa Mines and Minerals Limited Vs. Narendra Kumar Jain and Another, dismissing two applications filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff'),one under Order 8 rule 9 CPC and the other under Order 7 rule 14(3) CPC.
(2.) The trail court dismissing the application under Order 8 rule 9 CPC has found that the rejoinder only sought to reiterate facts in the plaint denied in the written statement and further to bring on record certain facts regarding other litigation between the parties which were not germane to the issue in the suit. Counsel for the plaintiff has not been able to establish any capriciousness or perversity in the trial court's exercise of jurisdiction. It therefore warrants no interference.
(3.) Order 7 Rule 14 provides that where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is presented by him and shall at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC indeed provides that 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, may be produced but not without the leave of the court, and if leave is granted be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.;