S. MUKERJEE ( 1 ) THIS is an application by the plaintiff under order 13 Rule 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 containing the prayer for producing and proving certain documents, as have been enumerated in the said application. ( 2 ) THE ground taken by the plaintiff/applicant, is that these documents have been traced out only recently i. e. shortly before the application was filed. ( 3 ) THE basic objection of the defendant/applicant, is that there is inordinate delay of about 17 years, and that the documents which are basically emerging from the custody of the plaintiff/applicant himself and that too, 17 long years after the filing of the suit, have to be rejected on that short account alone. instituted in the year 1981, and also that the father of the plaintiff/applicant passed away during the pendency of the case. ( 4 ) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, is that during his father s life time, and in view of the tender age of the plaintiff at that time, time, he (plaintiff) had no familiarity with the case records and after the demise of the father, it was only with the help of defendant no. 7, who is the sister of the father of the plaintiff, that these documents came to be traced out in 1998, and thereupon the application was filed in November, 1998. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the defendant on the other hand submits that it is a fundamental principle that the plaintiff must have filed all the documents in his possession alongwith the suit, or atleast latest till the framing of issues. In this case, the issues are stated to have been framed on 22. 3. 84 originally, and even the amended issues were also framed on 8. 2. 91. The evidence of the plaintiff started on 22. 9. 98 and was completed on 28. 1. 99. whereas, it is submitted, this application came to be filed only highly belatedly, in november 1998. ( 6 ) THE further objection of the defendant, is that the plaintiff cannot even claim that the documents were not in his possession and moreover Ganga Devi (the aunt) with whose help the documents have allegedly been traced out), is a colluding party who had introduced these documents in the form of photocopies. ( 6 ) THE further objection of the defendant, is that the plaintiff cannot even claim that the documents were not in his possession and moreover Ganga Devi (the aunt) with whose help the documents have allegedly been traced out), is a colluding party who had introduced these documents in the form of photocopies. After that attempt failed, shortly thereafter the plaintiff has followed up, in clear collusion, with the present application. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the defendant also vehemently submitted that the documents are also beyond the case set up in the plaint. He relies upon the reference to "half second story" and "fiat" in the document at page 404 of the record, and then further submits that from the contents of this page, it would be obvious that the documents deals with, if at all, only the flat and not the shop which had no water connection at all. In relation however, to page 406, the learned counsel for the defendant points out that there is no document at page 405 from the reference to water connection, there is no letter head and no report of service. The documents at page 408 is not even signed at all. ( 8 ) ABOUT the documents at pages 409 and 410 the defendant has no serious objection. Thereafter, in relation to page 412, the learned Counsel for the defendant points out that the correct documents is already there as Ext. Pw1/1, and this new document, which is sought to be brought in belatedly, is the same document but now with an additional "endorsement", which has been illegally interpolated lateron. ( 9 ) REGARDING the rent receipts, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant points out that whereas the receipts of earlier and subsequent period, had both been filed earlier, there is no explanation why the receipts for the in-between period, are now coming belatedly from the collusive quarters. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the defendant also points out that at the instance of same very Ganga Devi, these very documents had been sought to be brought out during the cross-examination but had not been permitted by the Court. Reliance is placed upon AIR 1929 PC 99. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the defendant also points out that at the instance of same very Ganga Devi, these very documents had been sought to be brought out during the cross-examination but had not been permitted by the Court. Reliance is placed upon AIR 1929 PC 99. ( 11 ) HAVING considered the matter in its totality in the context of the statutory provisions, to my mind this application for leave to file additional documents, has to be rejected both on account of the gross and inordinate delay of 17 years, as also on account of the said documents having remained and available in the possession of the plaintiff, for all these years. There is no explanation at all why the plaintiff stood precluded from taking the same help from the same aunt earlier, even assuming that the version set up by the. plaintiff is correct. ( 12 ) FURTHERMORE, most of the documents are such that their veracity is itself in doubt. Some are not signed at all, others have no date or letter head or report of service. There is yet another document which contains an endorsement additionally over and above the contents of already exhibited document which is Exhibit PW1/1. ( 13 ) RESULTANTLY, the application is dismissed on merits, except to the extent of the documents at pages 409,410 and the envelope at internal page 24 of list of documents dated November, 1998 at running pages 401 of record, which have been more or less accepted and/or not at all seriously disputed by the defendant. As such, while allowing the plaintiff to produce and prove the documents at pages 409 and 410 and the envelope which is at internal page 24, the relief claimed by way of the said application in relation to the other documents is declined. The application is disposed of in the above terms, but with no order as to costs.