Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 17.11.2011 passed in Title Suit No. 31 of 2001 by which the application for producing additional document has been rejected.
(2.) Title Suit No. 31 of 2001 was instituted by Bhagwat Singh and three others for a decree for declaration of the right, title, interest and plaintiffs possession over the suit land and confirmation of their possession over the suit land as well as permanent injunction. In the pending suit, after the plaintiffs evidence was closed, an application was filed by the defendant on 18.08.2011 for producing certain documents.
(3.) Order VII Rule 14 CPC provides that at the time of presentation of the plaint the plaintiff shall produce the documents upon which his claim is founded, however, under sub-rule 3 to Rule 14 to Order VII CPC additional document with leave of the court can be produced. Order XIII Rule 1 CPC provides that parties shall produce original documents before issues are settled in the suit. In their application dated 18.08.2011 no plausible explanation has been given by the defendant why the documents sought to be produced after the plaintiffs evidence was closed could not be produced by them before issues were settled. Initially, the defendant took a stand that they have right over the suit schedule property as successor of the recorded Raiyat, however, thereafter they filed an application for amendment claiming Bandobast in favour of their father namely, Shivpati Singh. The amendment application was rejected by the court. Now they intend to produce certificate of sale in Rent Receipt Case No. 212 of 34-35 which would make out a third case and, therefore, the trial Judge has rightly declined to admit it in evidence.;