JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The order dated 3.9.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Nimapara in T.S. No.121 of 1995 is assailed in this Writ Petition by the plaintiffs in that suit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that in the plaint a number of documents were relied upon, but in the list filed the said documents were nei¬ther mentioned nor copies thereof were filed. After commencement of trial of the suit and in course of examination of plaintiff’s witnesses, a petition was filed by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to permit them to amend the plaint and furnish the list of documents sought to be relied upon which may be exhibited during evidence. Analyzing the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC the Court below held that after commencement of trial a party should not be allowed to amend the pleadings unless of course the said party satisfies the Court that in spite of due diligence he could not raise the matter in question before com¬mencement of trial. 3. After going through the impugned order this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality therein. But then fact remains, the documents sought to be produced at the time of hearing have been referred to by way of pleadings in the plaint. In consonance with Order 7, Rule 14(1) CPC where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such document 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. In the case at hand, as it appears though certain documents had been relied upon in the plaint, no list thereof had been filed alongwith the plaint. Thus the case is covered under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC and not Order 6,Rule 17 CPC. 4. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 CPC stipulates that a document which ought to be produced by the plaintiff when the plaint is present or ought to be entered in the list are not pro¬duced or entered in the list, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Thus the Legislature in its wisdom has granted discre¬tion to Court to permit a plaintiff to produce the documents even after commencement of trial of the suit if is satisfied the Court that there are sufficient reasons for that. 5. the object of insisting on presentation of such docu¬ment along with the plaint obviously being to apprise the other party of the claim of the plaintiff the same should always be filed along with the plaint. A list of the said documents is also to be annexed to the plaint. But then Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of the aforesaid Order leads to irresistible conclusion that in a given case if Court is satisfied that there are certain inadvert¬ent or valid reasons, it can permit the plaintiff to file the documents and a list thereof at subsequent stage, i.e. after commencement of trial. 6. Be that as it may, procedure being hand-made of jus¬tice, the same should not stand in the way of effectual adjudica¬tion of a lis. Therefore this Court feels that the Court below ought to have taken a liberal view. Accordingly this Court allows the Writ Petition and directs the Court below to accept the list of documents filed by the plaintiffs along with copies of the said documents and proceed with the trial. To mitigate the preju¬dice/inconvenience that may be caused to the defendants, the plaintiffs are directed to pay a cost of Rs. 500.00 (five hun¬dred) within three weeks hence. This Court grants liberty to the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses who might have in the meanwhile been already examined. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.