ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 18.05.2006, passed in M.S. No. 5 of 2003 by learned Sub Judge-I, Deoghar, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as C.P.C.) and Order XLVII read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for exhibiting a document has been rejected. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a money suit being M.S. No. 5 of 2003 seeking a decree for recovery of Rs. 2.5 lacs with interest and in alternative, a decree for payment of compensation for damages caused to the petitioner, due to malafide act of the defendants/respondents. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Section 114 and Order XLVII read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for exhibiting a document, but the same was rejected by the court below vide order dated 08.08.2005 observing inter alia that the law does not permit either of the parties to file document at belated stage and the documents mentioned in the list while presenting the plaint can only be taken into evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not prayed for exhibiting any document which had not come in evidence during the trial, rather, the said document had already been proved in the deposition of P.W. 1 namely Pinaki Chakraborty, but due to inadvertence, the same was not marked as exhibit. It is further submitted that it is settled principle of law that if any document is already on record and the same was not marked due to inadvertence, said mistake is curable in nature and can be rectified at any stage of suit proceeding. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner will suffer serious prejudice as well as irreparable loss, if the said document is not marked due to mistake. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 14(3) of C.P.C. submits that there is specific provision in the Code itself that even if the document has not been filed at the time of presentation of the plaint, the court may permit the presentation of the same at the later stage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 14(3) of C.P.C. submits that there is specific provision in the Code itself that even if the document has not been filed at the time of presentation of the plaint, the court may permit the presentation of the same at the later stage. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the provision contained in Order VII Rule 14(1) clearly mandates the filing of document at the time of presentation of the plaint. He further submits that the petitioner did not file the document at the time of the presentation of the plaint as such the same cannot be taken into consideration at the later stage, therefore, the learned court below rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that duty has been cast upon the plaintiff to produce, proof and mark a document as an exhibit on which he relies upon and if he fails to perform the said duty, the same cannot be cured by filing a review petition. 5. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and on going through the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that the petitioner seems to have chosen wrong provisions of C.P.C. for getting a document exhibited. In the suit proceeding, the petitioner took recourse of Section 114 and Order XLVII read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. praying inter alia for exhibiting a document which was already proved in the deposition of P.W. 1 namely Pinaki Chakraborty, but it could not be exhibited by her. Under the said backdrop, provisions of Order VII Rule 14(1), Order VII Rule 14(3) and Order XIII Rule 1(1) of the C.P.C. would be relevant to be discussed for better appreciation of the issue involved. 6. Order VII Rule 14(1) C.P.C. prescribes that where the plaintiff relies upon a document in his possession in support of his claim, he shall enter such document in a list and shall produce the same in the Court when the plaint is presented by him. 6. Order VII Rule 14(1) C.P.C. prescribes that where the plaintiff relies upon a document in his possession in support of his claim, he shall enter such document in a list and shall produce the same in the Court when the plaint is presented by him. However, Order VII Rule 14 (3) C.P.C. (as amended by Act 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 01.07.2002) prescribes that the document which was required to be produced in the Court by the plaintiff at the time when the plaint was presented, but the same was not produced, shall not be taken in evidence without the leave of the court. Further, Order XIII Rule 1(1) C.P.C. provides that the Court shall receive the document produced before the settlement of the issues if the copies thereof have been filed along with the plaint or written statement. However, on combined reading of Order XIII Rule 1(1), Order VII Rule 14(1) and Order VII Rule 14 (3) C.P.C., it will emerge that if the plaintiff applies for permission or leave of the court to produce the document to be received in evidence which were not produced on or before settlement of the issues or at the time of production of the plaint, the court has to exercise discretion to grant leave for production of the same at the later stage. In my considered opinion, the provisions of Order XIII Rule 1(1), Order VII Rule 14 (1) and Order VII Rule 14 (3) are required to be read together harmoniously so as not to render the purpose of the Code ineffective. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, it can safely be concluded that if the plaintiff applies for leave of the Court to produce document to be received in evidence at the time of hearing of the suit which were not produced on or before settlement of the issues or at the time of production of the plaint, the same can be done with the leave of the Court. However, power to grant leave has to be exercised in suitable cases as an exception and not in a routine manner. 8. However, power to grant leave has to be exercised in suitable cases as an exception and not in a routine manner. 8. Coming back to the fact of the case, though the petitioner examined 6 (six) witnesses and also marked certain documents as exhibits, the learned court below committed an error in not permitting the petitioner to exhibit the money receipts dated 02.12.2002 which was already proved by Pinaki Chakraborty (P.W. 1) in her deposition. It is true that the petitioner had taken recourse of wrong provisions of C.P.C. in getting the said money receipts exhibited in the suit proceeding, yet the same cannot be said to be fatal in nature, as the Code itself provides the provisions as discussed hereinabove to enable the plaintiff to get the document(s) exhibited at a later stage of trial with the leave of the Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 18.05.2006, passed in M.S. No. 5 of 2003 by learned Sub Judge-I, Deoghar cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Consequently, to ensure the proper adjudication of the suit, it would be appropriate to hold that if the petitioner files an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of C.P.C. seeking leave of the Court for exhibiting the said money receipt dated 02.12.2002, learned court below shall pass appropriate order on the said application considering the fact that the said money receipt was already filed with the list of documents by the petitioner and as such the same is available on record which has already been proved by P.W. 1 (Pinaki Chakraborty) in her deposition. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.