ORDER : Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 28.3.17 passed by the Election Tribunal (Additional Senior Civil Judge), Hanumangarh in Election Petition No. 1/15, allowing an application preferred by the respondent under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC. 2. The facts relevant are that the respondent filed an election petition before the District Judge, Hanumangarh, under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, questioning the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, 2 KSP, on the ground that at the time of filing the nomination form, she was not possessing the requisite educational qualification of Standard 8th. It is specifically averred in the election petition that the Provisional Achievement Certificate issued by Awam Educational and Development Society Umra Mewat showing that the election petitioner has acquired qualification of 8th Standard is a forged document. It is contended that since the election petitioner lacking in requisite academic qualification, was not eligible to contest the election. 3. The election petition is being contested by the petitioner herein, by filing a reply thereto. During the pendency of the election petition, the respondent preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, for taking certified copy of the charge sheet filed by the police before the criminal court of competent jurisdiction against the petitioner for offences under Sections 171(6), 182, 193, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC on record. The application was opposed by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that the document sought to be produced is not relevant for adjudication of the controversy involved and in absence of any pleadings in this regard, the document sought to be produced is not admissible in evidence. 4. After due consideration, the application has been allowed by the Election Tribunal. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Election Tribunal cannot allow party to lead evidence which is not in line of the pleadings. Learned counsel submitted that in absence of there being any pleading regarding the charge sheet being filed against the petitioner, the respondent cannot be permitted to lead evidence in this regard. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P.Joshi", AIR 2011 SC 1127 . In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P.Joshi", AIR 2011 SC 1127 . Learned counsel submitted that without there being any explanation set out in the application explaining the delay in production of documents, the application preferred was liable to be rejected. Learned counsel submitted that the Election Tribunal has proceeded to take the document on record without examining the relevancy thereof to the controversy involved in the election petition and thus, the order impugned is liable to be set aside for this reason also. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 7. As per provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of CPC, a document which ought to have been 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 be without the leave of the court be received in the evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Thus, the document produced by the plaintiff even after filing of the plaint, can be received in evidence at any stage of the hearing with the leave of the court. 8. It is settled law that the rules of procedure are hand maiden of justice and the cause of justice cannot be permitted to be defeated on account of failure to observe the procedure laid down strictly. But then, the provision requiring filing of the documents so also the list of the documents on which the plaintiff relies upon but the same are not in his possession, at the time of filing of plaint, has been incorporated by the legislature in its wisdom to avoid the unnecessary delay in adjudication and for expeditious disposal of the lis between the parties. Therefore, the plaintiff who wants to produce the documents at the later stage, invoking the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 (3) must satisfy the court that the documents sought to be produced could not be produced at the appropriate stage on account of the fact that the same were not in his possession or he had no knowledge about the existence of the same. 9. 9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that the election petition was filed by the respondent on 9.2.15. Admittedly, the complaint filed by the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate, Tibbi for offences under Sections 171(6), 182, 193, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC stating that the Provisional Achievement Certificate alleged to have been issued by Awam Educational and Development Society Umra Tehsil Nagina, District Mewat, Haryana, produced by the petitioner along with nomination form is forged document and that affidavit filed by the petitioner along with nomination form contains false averment that he possesses the class 8th qualification, was referred by the court for investigation to the police. After investigation, the charges against the petitioner being found proved, a charge sheet has been filed by the police on 8.11.16. In this view of the matter, obviously, the document sought to be produced by the respondent was not in existence at the time of filing of the election petition and thus, the plea sought to be taken by the petitioner regarding belated production of the documents is absolutely devoid of any merit. 10. It is to be noticed that precisely the controversy raised in the election petition is that the petitioner was not possessing the requisite academic qualification for contesting the election to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, as the certificate produced by her in this regard at the time of filing of the nomination form is a forged document. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the charge sheet filed by the police after due investigation, taken on record by the Election Tribunal is not relevant to the controversy involved. For the parity of reasons, it cannot be said to be beyond the pleadings either. Thus, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh Chouhan's case (supra) does not help the petitioner in any manner. 11. In view of the discussion above, the judicial discretion exercised by the Election Tribunal in taking the document on record does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 12. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.