JUDGMENT : Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 9.9.16 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadra in Election Petition No. 1/15, allowing an application preferred by the respondent, the election petitioner, 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, Mahrana, on the ground that at the time of filing the nomination form the certificate of passing Standard 8th, filed by her is a forged document and thus, on account of lacking in minimum educational qualification prescribed, she was not eligible to contest the election. The Election Petition is being contested by the petitioner herein, by filing a reply thereto. During the pendency of the Election Petition, the election petitioner preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 14 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 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B IPC and some seizure memos, on record. The application was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that the documents sought to be produced are not relevant for adjudication of the controversy involved and in absence of any explanation regarding delay in producing the documents, the same cannot be taken on record. 3. After due consideration, the application has been allowed by the Election Tribunal. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Election Petition must be determined on its own, keeping in view the evidence which has been brought on record before the Election Tribunal and not on the basis of evidence collected in the criminal proceedings and thus, the order impugned passed by the Election Tribunal permitting the documents to be taken on record, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court dated 17.9.14 passed in 'Ramswaroop v. Ram Chandra and Ors.' (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 8527/12). Learned counsel submitted that in absence of the explanation regarding the delay in production of documents, the application preferred was liable to be rejected. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court dated 17.9.14 passed in 'Ramswaroop v. Ram Chandra and Ors.' (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 8527/12). Learned counsel submitted that in absence of the explanation regarding 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 documents 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. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that on account of forged and fabricated certificate being produced, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner wherein after due investigation the police found the certificate to be forged and thus, the charge-sheet filed therein and the seizure memos prepared during the investigation are certainly documents relevant to the controversy involved and thus, the Election Tribunal has committed no error in permitting the documents to be taken on record. Learned counsel submitted that the charge-sheet against the petitioner was filed by the police on 16.10.15, whereas the Election Petition was filed by the respondent on 12.2.15 and thus, obviously the documents which have come into existence after filing of the Election Petition could not have been filed by the respondent earlier and thus, the objection regarding the delayed production of the documents raised by the petitioner is absolutely devoid of any merit. Learned counsel submitted that under Order 7, Rule 14 (3), with the leave of the court, the documents can be filed at any stage. Learned counsel submitted that the documents produced have already been exhibited in the evidence and the petitioner had never raised any objection regarding the said documents being exhibited in the evidence and thus, even otherwise, the petitioner is not entitled to raise any objection in this regard at this stage. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Shyam Lal @ Kuldeep v. Sanjeev Kumar and Ors.' 2009 (3) CCC 535 (SC) and a decision of this Court in the matter of 'Jabber Lal and Ors. v. LRs of Ram Narayan and Ors.' 2012 (4) CCC 155 (Rajasthan). 6. v. LRs of Ram Narayan and Ors.' 2012 (4) CCC 155 (Rajasthan). 6. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. 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. Indisputably, the documents taken on record by the Election Tribunal by order impugned were not in existence at the relevant time when the respondent filed 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. 9. Indisputably, the documents taken on record by the Election Tribunal by order impugned were not in existence at the relevant time when the respondent filed 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. It is not disputed that after due investigation, the police has already filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B IPC. It is also not in dispute that the documents produced already stand exhibited in evidence and petitioner had not raised any objection regarding admissibility thereof in evidence at the appropriate stage. A bare perusal of the statement of AW-1 Sumitra, the respondent herein, reveals that the petitioner had raised objections regarding two other documents which were also exhibited in evidence and not against the documents which were permitted to be taken on record by the order impugned. 11. In Shyam Lal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down that the objections regarding the admissibility of the document must be taken at the time before it is received in evidence and marked as an exhibit. Similar is the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi 2004 (4) RLW (SC) 513. Moreover, notwithstanding the documents being exhibited in evidence, the petitioner is not precluded from contending that the documents exhibited in evidence for the facts sought to be proved have no evidentiary value. The decision of this Court in Ram Swaroop's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel which relates to relevancy of judgment, order or decree as per the provisions of Section 43 of the Evidence Act other than those mentioned in Section 40, 41 and 42 has no bearing in the instant case. 12. In view of the discussion above, no case for interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 13. 12. In view of the discussion above, no case for interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 13. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.