Judgment Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1. 2. Rule Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1 waives service. 3. The above Petition challenge the Order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Mapusa, dated 12.09.2012, whereby an application filed by the Petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code to rely upon some additional documents, came to be rejected. 4. Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has assailed the impugned Order essentially on the ground that the documents which are sought to be produced are public documents and, according to him, the learned Judge was not justified to come to the conclusion that such documents could be manufactured. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the documents which are sought to be produced are material to consider the dispute in controversy. Learned Counsel further submits that as such the learned Judge has committed an error in not allowing the Petitioners to produce the documents. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the documents which are sought to be produced were in Portuguese language and very old documents which the Petitioners were unable to understand the relevancy of said documents and, as such, the documents were not produced at the time of filing of the suit. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the dispute in the suit with regard to the property which the Petitioners claim is belonging to the Petitioners and the documents which are sought to be produced establish according to the Petitioners that the property was belonging to the ancestors of the Petitioners. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Order as well as the plaint and the other material on record and pointed out that the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned Order. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel has relied upon the Judgment of this Court reported in 2006(5) ALL MR 438 in the case of Smt. Chitrakala Fal Dessai vs. Shri Balu Marathe alias Mane s/o. Jyotiba Marathe. 5. On the other hand, Shri J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1 has supported the impugned Order. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel has relied upon the Judgment of this Court reported in 2006(5) ALL MR 438 in the case of Smt. Chitrakala Fal Dessai vs. Shri Balu Marathe alias Mane s/o. Jyotiba Marathe. 5. On the other hand, Shri J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1 has supported the impugned Order. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the suit was filed in the year 2004 and the application for production of documents is filed only in the year 2012 when the matter was finally part heard. Learned Counsel further pointed out that such conduct on the part of the Petitioners would cause grave prejudice to the Respondents as, in any event, the documents have no relevancy to the matter in controversy. Learned Counsel has taken me through the documents and pointed out that two of the certificates which are allegedly issued by the Superintendent of Survey and Records cannot be considered to be public document as the matter referred to therein can only be an opinion of such authority. Learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the certificate issued by the Sarpanch and pointed out that such certificate is not a public document. Learned Counsel however does not dispute that the other document sought to be produced from the Land Survey Department about the records of the Village of Siolim, may be a public document. It is the contention of Shri Mulgaonkar that the said document cannot decide the controversy in dispute and it does not support the case of the Petitioners. Learned Counsel further pointed out that considering the negligence on the part of the Petitioners as no justifiable reason is given in the application to produce the said documents, this Court should not interfere in the impugned Order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel as such submits that the Petition be rejected. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also gone through the impugned Order. On perusal of the documents which are sought to be produced, Shri Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1, is justified to contend that the Certificates dated 25.05.2012 and 13.06.2012 issued by the Superintendent of Survey of Land Records, Panaji, cannot be considered to be public documents. I have also gone through the impugned Order. On perusal of the documents which are sought to be produced, Shri Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1, is justified to contend that the Certificates dated 25.05.2012 and 13.06.2012 issued by the Superintendent of Survey of Land Records, Panaji, cannot be considered to be public documents. On the contrary, on perusal of the contents thereof, it is only an option of the said authorities which will have to be established and proved in accordance with law. Considering the said aspect, I find that the Petitioners are not entitled to produce the said two documents at this stage. The certificate of the Sarpanch of the local Panchayat dated 27.03.2012 is also not a public document within the provisions of the Evidence Act. The question of allowing production of these documents on the ground that they are public documents as contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, would not be justified. 7. With regard to the next three documents which are sought to be produced, it appears that the said documents are part of the records maintained by the Land Survey Records. On perusal of the said documents, it is not in dispute that the name of the property referred to therein is the same as claimed by the Petitioners. Whether the said documents otherwise establishes the case of the Petitioners, will have to be considered on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record. 8. In the Judgment of this Court relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in the case of Smt. Chitrakala Fal Dessai vs. Shri Balu Marathe alias Mane s/o. Jyotiba Marathe (supra), it has been observed at para 9 thus: “It is pertinent to note that Rule 2 of Order 13 requiring good cause to be shown has now been deleted and by amendment sub-rule (3) is added to Order 14 which states that leave of the Court has to be obtained for production of such documents. But even accepting that while persuading the Court to grant leave, a party has to show cause why the documents could not be produced earlier, not a very strict, restricted and pedantic view can be taken of this provision. But even accepting that while persuading the Court to grant leave, a party has to show cause why the documents could not be produced earlier, not a very strict, restricted and pedantic view can be taken of this provision. Ultimately the Court will have ensure that all documents which assist it to resolve the controversy before it in an efficient manner are available for its perusal. Unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the facts are so gross that the only inference that can be drawn from the conduct of the party is that the documents which are sought to be produced are manufactured, the Court should not generally deny leave to produce documents because ultimately it is always open to the other side to cross examine the party who produces the documents to establish that the said documents are not relevant or that the case based on the said documents is not true. In my opinion in this case, at this stage, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that the documents at serial nos. (f) and (j) are manufactured. However, that does not preclude the defendant, if he so desires, to cross-examine the plaintiff and persuade the Court to hold so. In the nature of things, no final opinion can be expressed by this Court on this aspect of the matter, at this stage.” 9. Considering that the said documents are public documents which appear prima facie in respect of the property claimed by the Petitioners, I find that the findings of the learned Judge that the documents are manufactured, cannot be accepted. In view of the ratio laid down in the said Judgment in the case of Smt. Chitrakala Fal Dessai vs. Shri Balu Marathe alias Mane s/o. Jyotiba Marathe (supra), I find that the Petitioners are entitled for leave to produce the said documents subject to proving the contents thereof in accordance with law. Considering the delay in producing the said document, the Petitioners are liable to pay costs which are quantified at Rs.10,000/-to the Respondents. 10. In view of the above, I pass the following: (i) The Petitioners are granted necessary leave to rely upon the documents referred to at para 6(c)(d) and (e) in the application dated 12.07.2004 subject to the Petitioners pay costs of Rs.10,000/-as condition precedent to the Respondents. 10. In view of the above, I pass the following: (i) The Petitioners are granted necessary leave to rely upon the documents referred to at para 6(c)(d) and (e) in the application dated 12.07.2004 subject to the Petitioners pay costs of Rs.10,000/-as condition precedent to the Respondents. (ii) Needless to say, the Petitioners would be entitled to prove the contents of the said document and the Respondents would be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal, if any, if advised in accordance with law. (iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (iv) Petition stands disposed of accordingly.