Judgment : 1. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 12.2.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Quepem, Goa, in Regular Civil Suit No. 153/2010/B, thereby allowing an application filed by the respondents for production of additional documents. 2. The respondents are the original plaintiffs and the petitioners are the original defendants. The respondents have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 153/2010/B against the petitioners for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and also for payment of damages. The evidence in the suit was closed and final arguments were also heard. On 10.1.2014 the respondents prayed for adjournment as they wanted to produce the entire proceedings of Inventory No. 17014/57 along with Survey Form No. III of Survey Nos. 239/12 and 239/15 of Cacoda village, the same being necessary for deciding effectively the real controversy involved in the suit. The respondents also filed an application vide Ex.81 seeking leave of the Court to produce these documents in evidence. The application was strongly opposed by the petitioners. 3. It was submitted by the petitioners that the respondents had deliberately not produced all the documents of Inventory Proceedings and kept away some of the documents and if the respondents had produced them in the beginning itself, the whole defence or the whole line of cross-examination would have been different. It was also submitted that no reasons were given by the respondents for not producing these documents at the earlier stage, even though they could have been obtained by them. On these grounds, it was urged that the application was liable to be rejected. 4. After hearing both the sides, the learned Civil Judge by the order dated 12.2.2014 allowed the application permitting the respondents to produce all the documents on record. He also gave an opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine the plaintiffs on Inventory Proceedings being produced on record. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Shri Vernekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the provisions of Order VII Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, have to be read with the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17, as in the instant case by the impugned order permission has been granted to the petitioners to cross-examine the respondents on Inventory Proceedings. 5. Shri Vernekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the provisions of Order VII Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, have to be read with the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17, as in the instant case by the impugned order permission has been granted to the petitioners to cross-examine the respondents on Inventory Proceedings. He submits that when both these provisions are read together, it would be noticed that these provisions cannot be resorted to for filling up lacuna in the case of the plaintiff and if no justifiable reasons are stated, such as the document sought to be produced in evidence being not available earlier, or though available being necessary for only clarifying the ambiguity cropped up in the evidence of the plaintiff, production of additional evidence cannot allowed by the Court. In support he places his reliance on the following cases: (i) Merwyn Anthony Fernandes vs. Brian Louis Sequera and Jane Philomena Sequeira -[W.P. No. 683/10 {decided on 10.1.2011} (ii) Haldiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Haldiram Bhujiawala - [2009] 158 DLT 522 (iii) M/s Bagai Construction v. M/s Gupta Building Material Store – AIR 2013 SC 1849 6. Shri Thali, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the reply (Ex.82) filed by the petitioners to the application vide Ex.81 itself would show that the application for production of additional documents in evidence has not been opposed on the ground that the Inventory Proceedings are not relevant to the controversy involved in the suit, but on the ground that the respondents purposely chose to not bring the said document on record till the final stage of the suit so as to misguide and mislead the petitioners in setting up the proper defence. He submits that in fact the petitioners had carried on the cross-examination to the effect that some of the documents of Inventory Proceedings that were filed on record were incomplete and this point was also taken up during the course of the arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and considering such defence, the learned Civil Judge has thought it fit to grant leave to the petitioners to produce these documents in evidence so that the controversy involved in the suit can be properly and effectively decided. He also submits that while granting such relief, the learned Civil Judge has taken care to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the defence of the petitioners and opportunity has been given to the petitioners to cross-examine the plaintiffs on Inventory Proceedings. He has also submitted that in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, having regard to inherent limitations of the jurisdiction to review the order passed by the court below, it will not be open for this Court to interfere with the impugned order, same being neither perverse nor illegal nor against the settled principles of law. In support he places his reliance upon the following cases : (a) Smt. M.M. Amonkar & ors. v. Dr. S.A. Johari - (1984) 2 SCC 354 (b) Abdul Razak (Dead) thr. L.Rs. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & ors. - (2010) 2 SCC 43. (c) Premanand Gajanan Naik & anr. vs. Sachit Gajanan Naik & anr. 7. Upon going through the impugned order and considering the stage at which it has been passed, I am of the view that there is great substance in the argument canvassed before me on behalf of the petitioners and no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents. 8. In the present case, the civil suit has been filed in the year 2010. It is not in dispute that at the time when the application (Ex.81) was filed, the arguments were over and the suit was fixed for clarification and pronouncement of the judgment. The application (Ex.81) does not disclose any reason as to why all the documents of the Inventory Proceedings were not or could not be filed earlier by the respondents. The only grounds are that a point has been raised in the arguments about producing in evidence incomplete Inventory Proceedings and arising of the need to show that by virtue of the said inventory, no share in the suit property has been passed on either to Shri Ramkrishna Rege or his mother and no other name is figuring beside name of Xantaram Sinai Cacodcar even in Form No. 3. 9. It is thus obvious that by seeking leave to produce additional documents what the respondents/plaintiffs are trying to achieve is to fill up the lacunae in their evidence and not giving of any clarification so as to remove the ambiguity in their evidence. 9. It is thus obvious that by seeking leave to produce additional documents what the respondents/plaintiffs are trying to achieve is to fill up the lacunae in their evidence and not giving of any clarification so as to remove the ambiguity in their evidence. Now, it is well settled law that provisions of Order VII Rule 14 read with provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 cannot be used for filling up the lacuna either in the pleadings or in the evidence of the plaintiffs. Some acceptable reason or cause must be shown by the plaintiffs as to why the documents were not placed on record during the entire trial. 10. In the case of M/s Bagai Construction, supra, the facts were almost identical. The plaintiff therein had sought to produce additional documents in the nature of some bills at the stage when the evidence as well as final arguments had been concluded and the suit was reserved for pronouncing of judgment. No acceptable reason or cause was shown by the plaintiff as to why the said documents were not placed on record during the entire trial. The documents were also available throughout the trial and yet they were not produced before the Court. In such a fact situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the order of the Additional District Judge dismissing the applications filed for production of documents by leading additional evidence, observing in para 11 thus: “The perusal of the materials placed by the plaintiff which are intended to be marked as bills have already been mentioned by the plaintiff in its statement of account but the original bills have not been placed on record by the plaintiff till the date of filing of such application. It is further seen that during the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff but for the reasons known to it, still the plaintiff has not placed these bills on record. In such circumstance, as rightly observed by the trial Court at this belated stage and that too after the conclusion of the evidence and final arguments and after reserving the matter for pronouncement of judgment, we are of the view that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to file such applications to fill the lacunae in its pleadings and evidence led by him. As rightly observed by the trial Court, there is no acceptable reason or cause which has been shown by the plaintiff as to why these documents were not placed on record by the plaintiff during the entire trial. Unfortunately, the High Court taking note of the words “at any stage” occurring in Order XVIII Rule 17 casually set aside the order of the trial Court, allowed those applications and permitted the plaintiff to place on record certain bills and also granted permission to recall PW-1 to prove those bills. Though power under Section 151 can be exercised if ends of justice so warrant and to prevent abuse of process of the court and Court can exercise its discretion to permit reopening of evidence or recalling of witness for further examination/cross-examination after evidence led by the parties, in the light of the information as shown in the order of the trial Court, namely, those documents were very well available throughout the trial, we are of the view that even by exercise of Section 151 of CPC, the plaintiff cannot be permitted.” 11. In the case of Merwyn Anthony, and also in the case of Haldiram, supra, the learned Single Judges of this Court and Delhi High Court have taken a view that unless there are sound reasons adduced by the plaintiff for not producing the documents at the time of filing of the plaint or even during the trial, the Court should not casually grant the application filed for production of documents under Order VII Rule 14, CPC. 12. From the above discussion, it is clear that the plaintiff, in order to invoke the discretionary power of the Court under Order VII Rule 14, CPC, must satisfy the Court that there were strongly justifiable reasons which prevented the plaintiff from producing the documents before the Court at the time of filing of the plaint or even during the pendency of the trial and that the power cannot be used as a remedy for filling up the lacuna or deficiencies in the pleadings or evidence of the plaintiff. 13. 13. From the grounds stated in the application which have also been canvassed before this Court on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the application for production of various documents of the Inventory Proceedings was filed to explain the stand of the plaintiffs that no share in the suit property passed on either to Shri Ram Rege or to his mother and that no other name except that of Xantaram Sinai Cacodcar figured in Survey Form No. III of the suit property, which effort could and should have been made much earlier before the defendants opened up their defence. As it was not done at the time of filing of the plaint or even during trial of the suit, now doing so would amount to filling up the lacuna in the case of the plaintiffs. Such an application, in view of the settled law, as discussed above, cannot be permitted to be made by the plaintiffs, i.e. the respondents herein. The impugned order, therefore, would have to be said as having been passed in complete ignorance of the settled position of law, and as such, absolutely illegal and unsustainable in law. 14. In the case of Abdul Razak, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court must appreciate that it does not hear the appeal against order of the trial Court and that it must consider, before interfering with the order of the trial Court, if the trial Court has committed any jurisdictional error or not. 15. There is no dispute about the aforestated principle of law and in the instant case by following the same, I find that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 16. In the case of Smt. M.M. Amonkar & ors., supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, re-appreciation of entire evidence and interference with the concurrent findings of fact is not justified. With due respect, it must be stated that there being no reappreciation of evidence done by this Court, the said judgment would be of no assistance to the case of the respondents. 17. With due respect, it must be stated that there being no reappreciation of evidence done by this Court, the said judgment would be of no assistance to the case of the respondents. 17. In the case of Premanand, supra, this Court has held that unless the impugned order is perverse or absolutely illegal or in violation of well settled principles of law or in breach of statutory provisions or of fundamental rights, same cannot be interfered with by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. I have already found that the impugned order is against the well established principles of law. 18. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application vide Ex.81 is rejected. Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Quepem, is directed to proceed with the trial in Regular Civil Suit No. 1653/2010/B, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.