Judgment 1. The Revision Petitioner/plaintiff has focussed the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 20.11.2010 in I.A.No.1112 of 2010 in O.S.No.385 of 2009 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Cuddalore. 2. The Learned District Munsif, Cuddalore, while passing the impugned order in I.A.No.1112 of 2010 in O.S.No.385 of 2009, on 20.11.2010, has inter alia observed that "The document relating to immovable property has to be registered and sufficiently stamped. Therefore, according to Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, an unstamped document cannot be considered even for collateral purpose and so it cannot be marked as evidence. Therefore the above two documents, if received by the court, cannot be marked by the petitioner in his evidence...", and resultantly dismissed the petition without costs. 3. Assailing the correctness of the dismissal order of the I.A.No.1112 of 2010 in O.S.No.385 of 2009 passed by the trial court on 20.11.2010, the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Devasthanam submitted that the trial court has failed to take into account that reception of documents is one thing and marking them is another aspect. Advancing her arguments, the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Devasthanam urges before this Court that the trial court has incorrectly held that the documents in issue cannot be marked, since no argument was submitted in regard to the marking of the same and also it was a premature stage. 4. The main thrust of the submission made by the Learned counsel for the petitioner/Devasthanam is that the unregistered settlement deed dated 16.03.2008, though it is loosely termed as 'settlement deed', in reality, it is only letter of consent to surrender superstructure alone. 5. Lastly, the contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner/Devasthanam is that even if the two documents in issue requires stamp duty and penalty in law, the Court of law is to impound them and it cannot straight away reject the documents. Adding further, the Learned counsel for the petitioner also projects a plea that the two documents are of under value and they do not require registration as per law. 6. Adding further, the Learned counsel for the petitioner also projects a plea that the two documents are of under value and they do not require registration as per law. 6. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that the I.A.No.1112 of 2010 in O.S.No.385 of 2009 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner is a vexatious one and the purported documents are sought to be projected by the petitioner at the belated point of time, when the suit in O.S.No.385 of 2009 has been posted before the trial court in the special list. 7. Expatiating his submission, the Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that the documents in question are not connected in any way to the subject matter of the suit and these documents, in any event have no evidentiary value. 8. At this juncture, a cursory perusal of the affidavit in I.A.No.1112 of 2010 filed by the petitioner/Devasthanam clearly points out that the main suit has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction and other reliefs and the documents viz., the unregistered sale deed dated 27.02.1965 and the settlement deed dated 16.03.2008 are important documents to prove its case ; that the necessity to file them arose at this stage only ; and if the documents in question are not received, then the petitioner/plaintiff will be put to loss and hardship. 9. In the counter filed by the third respondent/third defendant (adopted by the fourth respondent/fourth defendant), it is mentioned that the petitioner/plaintiff (Devasthanam) has not assigned any valid reasons to receive the documents in question and I.A.No.1112 of 2010 has been projected with a view to prolong the pending proceedings in O.S.No.385 of 2009. 10. Ordinarily, inspite of Or.18 Rule 17 A of CPC being deleted, a plaintiff in a suit can file documents, which he relies at a subsequent stage with a leave of the Court as per Or.17 Rule 14(3) of Civil Procedure Code. By and large, the probative value/evidence of the documents in question, whether it can be admitted in evidence or whether it is stamped or not can be decided at a latter point of time. 11. By and large, the probative value/evidence of the documents in question, whether it can be admitted in evidence or whether it is stamped or not can be decided at a latter point of time. 11. Under Or.7 Rule 14(3) of CPC, a Court of Law can accord permission to receive documents at any stage of hearing of the suit, if only proper or justifiable or acceptable reason/explanation is assigned by a party for not filing the document in question along with the plaint at the earliest point of time. The terms 'sufficient cause' are to be given a lenient and liberal meaning. Documents that are necessary/essential to prove the claim of a particular party may be allowed to be produced at a latter stage. Mere delay in filing the petition to file documents would be no ground to reject the same, if no inconvenience is caused to the opposite side. By filing the documents belatedly through an application, a party could be directed to pay either costs or exemplary costs in a given situation, as opined by this Court. 12. The words 'documents sued upon' is to be construed as basic document in suit. The provision as to the filing of the documents in CPC at the time of filing of the plaint is not mandatory in nature. In the considered opinion of this Court, per contra, it is only directory in nature. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1112 of 2010 under Order 7 Rule 14 (3 of Civil Procedure Code). When a Court of law deals with an application/petition under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC, the concerned Court, by exercising its judicial discretion, can condone the delay in not filing the documents in question at earlier point of time by the petitioner in a given case. Even with the leave of the Court, the concerned documents can be permitted to be received as per Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC. In fact, the omission under Order 18 Rule 17 A of CPC will have little significance. Even the non-filing of the documents and not producing the same at the time of filing of the suit/plaint is not ordinarily fatal and also not liable for rejection of the plaint. In fact, the omission under Order 18 Rule 17 A of CPC will have little significance. Even the non-filing of the documents and not producing the same at the time of filing of the suit/plaint is not ordinarily fatal and also not liable for rejection of the plaint. But, when the Court of law allows I.A.No.1112 of 2010, filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC, it has to take into account the important fact that whether the documents in issue sought to be projected and to be marked by the petitioner/Devasthanam has a probative value in the eye of law. In the instant case on hand, the petitioner/plaintiff has produced two documents in issue, which according to the respondents/defendants are totally unconnected with the subject matter of the suit. 14. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of the respective contentions, even though, the Court of law has a judicial discretion in permitting a litigant/party to allow the application/petition filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC, wherein, a prayer was made to condone the delay in filing the document and receiving the same etc., in the present case on hand, the petitioner has not made out a good cause/sufficient cause in regard to the filing of the documents in question at later point of time and in any event, the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case to allow I.A.No.1112 of 2010 in O.S.No.385 of 2009. Viewed from that angle, I.A.No.1112 of 2010 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court is devoid of merits. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails. 15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Accordingly, the order dated 20.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.1112 of 2010 in O.S.No.385 of 2009 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. Since the suit in O.S.No.385 of 2009 is of the year 2009, the trial court is directed to dispose of the main suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report the compliance to this Court without fail. Consequently, connected MP is closed.