JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - Order dated 9.12.2013 (Annexure P-3) of the lower court, vide which some documents were allowed, to be produced in their evidence, to the defendants, who were in the process of leading evidence, is under challenge in this petition. 2. It is claimed by the plaintiffs, petitioners herein, that some documents earlier were sought to be produced by the plaintiffs by making an application but on non-production of said documents by the defendants, the Court had ordered that an adverse inference was to be drawn against the defendants. Notwithstanding such objection by the plaintiffs, petitioners herein, request of the defendants to produce the documents was allowed. 3. The lower court has observed in no uncertain terms that the documents to be produced by the defendants in their evidence are of such nature without production of which, proper adjudication of the matter in dispute between the parties cannot be adjudicated. When the lower court itself has come to the conclusion that for wholesome and complete adjudication of the rival claims of the parties, production of documents by the defendants is necessary, mere non-production of these documents alongwith the written statement by the defendants is not a circumstance supporting the cause of the petitioners-plaintiffs. 4. In Santosh Aggarwal Versus Pardeep Kumar and others, [2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1389] : 2010(4) PLR 594 , this Court referring to Order VII Rule 14 as also Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC had come to the conclusion that notwithstanding non-production of documentary evidence with their pleadings by the parties, such documentary evidence could be produced even at a subsequent stage of course with leave of the Court. The defendants have explained to the Court below that the documents sought to be produced now by way of an application, were earlier not in their possession and had become available only later on. It has also been explained that the documents which were available with them had already been appended with the written statement. It is very well explained that the documents now sought to be produced were not available with them and thus, with leave of the Court were sought to be produced later when those became available as those are necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 5. It is very well explained that the documents now sought to be produced were not available with them and thus, with leave of the Court were sought to be produced later when those became available as those are necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 5. Even if we go by the provision of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, once the trial court has come to a definite finding that the documents are necessary for adjudication of rival claims of the parties, there is no reason that resorting to provisions of Order VII Rule 14 CPC and ignoring Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, the impugned order could have been passed. In short, Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC gives powers to the Court to seek production of any evidence felt necessary by it for adjudication of the matter to help the court to decide the same completely and more effectively. In Santosh Aggarwal’s case (supra), it has also been held by this Court that when documents sought to be filed having not been produced earlier with the pleadings, have been allowed by the court to the defendants during production of their evidence, the same would be within the domain and sweep of law. 6. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances as mentioned earlier, the application under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC for leave of the Court to produce the documents (Annexure P-1) was rightly allowed by the lower court vide impugned order dated 9.12.2013 (Annexure P-3). 7. Sequelly, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Affirming the same, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————