JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 16.2.2006 (Annexure-7) passed by the trial Court allowing the application of the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) C.P.C. taking on record certain documents. 3. This is challenged by the defendant, the present petitioner on the ground that earlier a similar application was rejected by the trial Court on 10.1.2006 and again when such application was filed vide Annexure-5, the same came to be allowed by the same Presiding Officer of the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bhansali submits that these documents could not have been taken on record as earlier such application was already rejected by the learned trial Court. 5. This submission is opposed by Mr. Vinay Jain, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent. He submits that earlier only photo copies of the documents were produced, the learned trial Court rejected the said application but later on when the plaintiff was able to obtain certified copies of the said documents, most of which are public documents, the learned trial Court has allowed the same by recourse to Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC, which cannot be assailed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties; this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in exercising its discretion under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) in the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******