JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. IA NO. 474 of 2017. The matter comes upon an application, IA No.474/2017 filed by the respondent, under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, seeking vacation of the interim order dated 21.07.2015 passed by this Court. 2. At the request of the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the proceedings before the Trial Court are stalled, the writ petition itself has been taken up for consideration at this stage. 3. Avoiding narration of the unnecessary details, the brief facts relevant for the present purpose are that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for Permanent Injunction against the defendants-railways. During the suit proceedings, the petitioner filed two applications dated 29.11.2014, first, under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as Code of Civil Procedure or the Code) inter-alia seeking leave to produce photostat copy of a map dated 31.01.1976 and second being an application of the even date under Order 11, Rule 12 of the Code, seeking direction to the defendants to produce the original water plan/map dated 31.01.1976. 4. The defendants contested both the applications by way of filing separate replies thereto and stated that the photocopy of the map/water plan dated 31.01.1976 is a forged document and the same has not been prepared by the officers of the Railways. 5. The learned Court below decided both the applications (under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) and under Order 11, Rule 12 of the CPC), by way of passing a composite order on 07.05.2015, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 6. Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reading out the contents of the application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code submitted that the map/water plan dated 31.01.1976, a photostat copy whereof has been sought to be placed on record by the plaintiff, had come to the notice/knowledge of the plaintiff subsequently and that is why he had sought leave of placing the same on record vide subject application. He further contended that sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 Order 7 permits a plaintiff to produce such documents stating reasons for not placing the same at the time of submitting the plaint, however, such liberty is circumscribed by a condition that such documents cannot be taken on record, except with the leave of the Court. He further contended that sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 Order 7 permits a plaintiff to produce such documents stating reasons for not placing the same at the time of submitting the plaint, however, such liberty is circumscribed by a condition that such documents cannot be taken on record, except with the leave of the Court. He submitted that the Court below has seriously erred in giving finding about the genuineness of the document and observing inter alia that the same is only a photostat copy not admissible in evidence. According to Mr. Rastogi such questions were not required to be gone into, much less decided at the stage of deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 14 of the CPC. 7. Per contra, Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel for the respondents reiterating the contents of the reply, supported the order of the Court below and submitted that map/water plan in question is only a photocopy and in view of the specific reply given by the defendants that the document in question had not been prepared by the Railways, the same has rightly not been taken on record. Mr. Vyas further contended that the document in question being a photostat copy is not admissible in evidence hence the order of the Trial Court is just and proper. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record. 9. As far as the application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, a bare reading of sub-rule (3) shows that the Court is required to examine the reason or cause of not filing the document along with the plaint. At the stage of deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC, the Court is not required to see whether the document is forged, concocted or unauthorised. The evidenciary value or reliability of the document are required to be seen at the time of marking exhibit and/or at the time of leading evidence. By way of the order impugned, the Court below rejected the application filed by the plaintiff, for the reasons which are neither relevant nor germane, for deciding the same. 10. The evidenciary value or reliability of the document are required to be seen at the time of marking exhibit and/or at the time of leading evidence. By way of the order impugned, the Court below rejected the application filed by the plaintiff, for the reasons which are neither relevant nor germane, for deciding the same. 10. My aforesaid view is based on the principles enunciated by the Supreme court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat reported in (2001) 3 SCC Page 1 (Para Nos.13 to 15). A beneficial reference may also be made of the judgment of this Court reported in 2014 (2) WLN 278 (Raj.) in this regard. The order impugned dated 07.05.2015 rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is therefore, quashed and set aside. Said application dated 29.11.2014 is allowed, the document namely photocopy of the map in question be taken on record. 11. Needless to observe that the defendants shall always have liberty to raise all just objections in relation to the authenticity, genuineness and admissibility of the document as and when occasion arises. Similarly, the plaintiff shall also have liberty to take appropriate steps, including seeking appropriate leave from the Court. 12. Adverting to the second application dated 29.11.2014 filed by the plaintiff, under Order 11, Rule 12 of the CPC seeking to summon/call for the original map from the defendants-Railways, suffice it to note that in response to the subject application, the defendants had clearly stated that the map/water plan is a forged document and as such there is no question of it being in possession of the Railways. As such the map in original cannot be called from the Railways, particularly when they have denied the factum of existence of such map. 13. Hence, the Trial Court has committed no error of law in rejecting the application under Order 11, Rule 12 of Code of the Civil Procedure. 14. As a fall out of the above discussion, the order dated 07.05.2015 is quashed and set aside to the extent it rejects the plaintiff's application dated 29.11.2014 under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the CPC, whereas the order rejecting another application under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC is affirmed. With these observations, the writ petition is partly allowed.