ORDER 1. Order dated 16.5.2015 passed in Civil Suit No.54-A/2009 is being questioned by the plaintiff vide present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; whereby, trial Court rejected the application for taking document on record. 2. Vide application in question the plaintiff sought leave to produce ten documents, these were sale-deed dated 25.2.1985, 11.3.1985, Sanshodhan Panji dated 25.1.1981, Transfer Certificate dated 20.7.1955, School Leaving Certificate 12.6.1993, Mark-sheet 1965, Medical Certificate 11.2.2015, Certificate by Allahabad Bank dated 28.5.2014 and Marriage Card envelope dated 23.5.1972 stating they are necessary to determine the conflict. 2. Vide application in question the plaintiff sought leave to produce ten documents, these were sale-deed dated 25.2.1985, 11.3.1985, Sanshodhan Panji dated 25.1.1981, Transfer Certificate dated 20.7.1955, School Leaving Certificate 12.6.1993, Mark-sheet 1965, Medical Certificate 11.2.2015, Certificate by Allahabad Bank dated 28.5.2014 and Marriage Card envelope dated 23.5.1972 stating they are necessary to determine the conflict. The trial Court observed : *^izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd mDr izdj.k izfroknh lk{; gsrq fu;r gS vkSj izfroknh lk{kh lqjs'k dk izfrijh{k.k fnukad 25-2-2015 ls izkjEHk gksdj foxr pkj ¼4½ isf'k;ksa ls yxkrkj pyk vk jgk gSA oknh ds }kjk mDr vkosnu i= varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 14¼3½ O;-iz-la- dks is'k dj fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd izfroknh ds }kjk eq[; ijh{k.k izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa mlds }kjk dqN vlR; dFku fd, x, gSa] ftl gsrq og mDr nLrkost&lwph fnukad 29-4-2015 ds vuqlkj dqy nl ¼10½ nLrkost izLrqr djuk pkgrk gS] ijarq izdj.k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izdj.k esa izfroknh lk{kh dk eq[;ijh{k.k iwoZ ls fnukad 27-11-2014 ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj fujarj izfroknh lk{kh dh lk{; dk izfrijh{k.k gksrk pyk vk jgk gS] fQj Hkh oknh i{k dh vksj ls vius i{k leFkZu esa dksbZ nLrkost bl laca/k esa izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS] tks fd oknh dj ldrk FkkA mDr izdj.k ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd mDr izdj.k o"kZ 1979 ls U;k;ky; esa yafcr gS vkSj nh?kZre yafcr izdj.k gSA U;k;ky; ds }kjk mDr izdj.k dks 'kh?kz𝔳'kh?kz fucVk, tkus ckor~ vFkd iz;kl fd, tk jgs gSA oknh ,oa izfroknh nksuksa dks pkfg, fd os mDr izdj.k ds 'kh?kz𝔳'kh?kz fujkdj.k gsrq U;k;ky; dk lg;ksx djsa vkSj vius i{k leFkZu esa izLrqr gksusokys nLrkostksa dks le; ij izLrqr djsaA pwafd izdj.k esa oknh lk{; fnukad 9-10-2014 dks lekIr gks pqdh gS vkSj vHkh izfroknh lk{kh dk izfrijh{k.k py jgk gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr nLrkost izdj.k ij fy;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA ;fn mDr nLrkost vfHkys[k ij fy, tkrs gSa rks izdj.k esa vuko';d gh foyac dkfjr gksxkA mHk;i{kksa ds }kjk vius i{k leFkZu esa nLrkost vfHkys[k ij fy, tkus vkSj ugha fy, tkus ds laca/k esa U;k;n`"V~kar izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa] ijarq izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr oknh i{k dks mDr nLrkost izLrqr djus dh vuqefr fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS] rFkk oknh i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;k;n`"Vkar ls Hkh oknh i{k dks dksbZ ykHk izkIr ugha gksrk gSA vr% oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu i= varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 14¼3½ O;-iz-la- dk vLohdkj dj fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA** 3. Sub-rule (3) of rule 14 of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'CPC') mandates “(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit”. The leave of the Court is not an empty formality and unless cogent explanation is tendered not only as to its necessity for effective decision but also the reasons which prevented the party from not filing it though the case has processed to an advance stage. The impugned order when adjudged on the principles enunciated in this rule, the same cannot be faulted with. 4. Though counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in Lakshmi and others v. Chinnammal @ Rayyammal and others [ (2009)13 SCC 25 ], The judgment being in context to Order 13 rule 10 of CPC which empowers Court to send for papers from its own records or from other Courts and not in context to the provisions of Order 7 rule 14(3) of CPC, as would be of any assistance to the petitioner. 5. There being no jurisdictional error or a material irregularity no interference is caused. 6. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Jaideep Sirpurkar for petitioner; A. Zargar for respondents No.9 and 12.