JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner's grievance is directed against order dated 01.03.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 73 of 2007. By this order, application dated 04.02.2016, seeking leave of the Court for producing a document which was furnished to the petitioner in response to a query under RTI, has been rejected. And, by order dated 01.03.2016 application dated 09.02.2016 which was filed by the petitioner for calling a competent person from the office of Circle Officer to prove document dated 15.12.2015 has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, Title Suit No. 73 of 2007 was instituted by the petitioner for declaring his exclusive ownership over the suit land and for a declaration that the defendants have no right, title, interest or possession over the vacant portion of the suit land. A decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants or their agents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from using a portion of the suit land as vehicle stand or collecting toll tax, has also been sought. The plaintiff has claimed that his father was paying rent to Raja Shiva Prasad Singh till the vesting of the land in the State of Bihar, and thereafter his father continued to pay rent to the State of Bihar. After the death of his father the petitioner is paying rent to the State for the suit schedule land. It is pleaded that father of the plaintiff constructed a house consisting of 13 rooms over a portion of suit schedule land and 3 rooms were let out on rent. Other 10 rooms remained under use of the plaintiff's family. The Circle Officer, Jharia vide its letter dated 26.08.2006 intimated defendant no. 2 about peaceful title and possession of the petitioner over the suit land, however, when defendant no. 6Administrative Officer tried to change the nature of the suit land into a bus stand by issuing an advertisement in the daily newspaper “Dainik Jagaran”, the plaintiff issued notice under section 80 CPC. In the suit, the defendants appeared and disputed service of notice under section 80 CPC. The defendants have claimed that the land comprised in plot no. 1849, khata no. 433, mouzaJharia does not confer any title over the plaintiff or his predecessors. No “Kabuliyat” as required under Section 45 of C.N.T. Act was executed, however, payment of rent and opening of Jamabandi have not been disputed. The defendants have claimed that the land comprised in plot no. 1849, khata no. 433, mouzaJharia does not confer any title over the plaintiff or his predecessors. No “Kabuliyat” as required under Section 45 of C.N.T. Act was executed, however, payment of rent and opening of Jamabandi have not been disputed. In the pending suit the aforesaid applications dated 04.02.2016 and 09.02.2016 were filed which have been dismissed vide impugned order dated 01.03.2016. 3. Referring to paragraph no. 17 of the plaint, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the information provided to the petitioner vide letter dated 15.12.2015 is in response to and continuation to the letters written by the plaintiffs, which have been mentioned in paragraph no. 17 of the plaint. It is submitted that the document dated 15.12.2015 when was provided to the petitioner, it became necessary to bring the said document on record for fortifying the claim of the petitioner in Title Suit No. 73 of 2007. 4. A perusal of order dated 01.03.2016 would indicate that after the parties closed their evidence in Title Suit No. 73 of 2007, applications dated 04.02.2016 and 09.02.2016 were filed. The suit was instituted in the year, 2007 and, thus, obviously there would not have been any pleading in respect of any information supplied by the Circle Officer vide letter dated 15.12.2015. The issue is, whether there is any factual foundation in the plaint and whether the document sought to be produced by the plaintiff is necessary for resolving the dispute involved in the suit. As noticed above, the petitioner has laid a claim over the suit property by virtue of a grant by the ex-landlord, for which his father used to pay rent to the ex-landlord and the State of Bihar after vesting of the land in the State of Bihar. The plaintiff/petitioner has asserted that after the death of his father rent was paid by him. Payment of rent by the petitioner and his father and mutation in their name are pleaded in the plaint, however, it is not a plea taken by the plaintiff that these documents are not in his possession. The plaintiff/petitioner has asserted that after the death of his father rent was paid by him. Payment of rent by the petitioner and his father and mutation in their name are pleaded in the plaint, however, it is not a plea taken by the plaintiff that these documents are not in his possession. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the information supplied through letter dated 15.12.2015 would fortifying his claim, is not an issue which can be examined while deciding an application for marking a document in the suit in respect of which there is no pleading. There is neither any application for amendment in the plaint nor any plausible explanation for not producing documentary evidence at the time when the suit was instituted, which now the plaintiff claims has obtained through RTI. The proceeding in the suit would disclose that the plaintiff's evidence commenced on 02.09.2008 and it was closed on 26.03.2010. Defendants' evidence was closed vide order dated 04.01.2016, and thereafter these applications, for taking letter dated 15.12.2015 on record and for summoning a competent person for proving the said letter and copy of Jamabandi, were filed. These is no foundation laid in the plaint, at-least in so far as letter dated 15.12.2015 and Jamabandi are concerned. Provision under Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C. mandates as under: Order VII Rule 14: “Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, where possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (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. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” 5. In view of the facts noticed hereinabove, I find that the applications dated 04.02.2016 and 09.02.2016 have rightly been rejected. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 01.03.2016, the writ petition stands dismissed.