JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)—Heard. After the learned counsel for the plaintiff making a statement before the learned trial Court holding echoings qua his closing the plaintiff''s evidence in the affirmative, an application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure stood preferred there before by the plaintiff, with a prayer therein qua a copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 pertaining to the suit land being permitted with the leave of the Court to be adduced in evidence. However, the learned trial Court refused to allow the application, on anvil, qua sub rule (3) to Rule 14 of Order 7 not holding any mandate qua after the plaintiff closing his evidence in the affirmative, his standing entitled to thereafter seek leave of the Court to adduce the relevant document into evidence. 2. The strength of the aforesaid reason has to be tested in the backdrop qua the relevant document at the time of its standing tendered into evidence, it thereat on its discernment not holding thereon the signature(s) of the Patwari of the Halqua concerned whereupon the apposite portrayal(s) made therein would obviously hold no tenacity. For curing the aforesaid infirmity gripping the relevant document, the plaintiff had approached the Patwari of the Halqua concerned, to purvey him a copy of the jamabandi apposite to the suit land holding there within his signatures, for its thereupon standing fastened with the apposite evidentiary worth. Since, time stood consumed by the plaintiff to obtain a copy of the relevant jamabandi holding there within the signatures of the Patwari of the Halqua concerned, thereupon after the closure of the plaintiff''s evidence, he hence preferred an application constituted under Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the CPC wherein he sought the leave of the Court to adduce it, into evidence, it being both, just and essential to decide the controversy. However, the learned trial Court for the aforesaid reasons declined the relief to the plaintiff. However, the learned trial Court for the aforesaid reasons declined the relief to the plaintiff. The declining of relief to the plaintiff by the learned trial Court under its impugned order has visibly spurred from its grossly misconstruing the import of sub rule (3) to Rule 14 of Order 7 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, also it abridging the parlance borne by the hereafter words occurring therein qua the apposite leave being grantable to the applicant "at the time of hearing of the suit'' besides its construing qua the signification borne by the aforesaid words occurring therein holding echoings qua after the the closure of the plaintiff''s evidence, the hearing of the suit terminating, thereon the relief claimed therein being impermissible, whereas, the appropriate parlance borne by the aforesaid words "after the hearing of the suit'' occurring therein, is qua even after the closure of the plaintiff''s evidence or of the defendants'' evidence uptil the Court concerned proceeding to hear arguments of the respective counsel, there upto the hearing of the suit continuing whereat it, for good reasons also for facilitating the cause of justice predominantly for clinching the relevant issues resting upon evidence, just and essential for hence its making a firm conclusion thereon, thereat holding jurisdiction to grant the apposite leave to the applicant despite reiteratedly the defendant or the plaintiff closing his evidence. Also since the apposite jamabandi did not at the stage of its standing tendered into evidence hold the signature(s) of the Patwari concerned whereupon it stood rendered unworth while thereupon when it constituted a pivotal piece of evidence for resting the relevant issue put to trial, its adduction into evidence even at the stage of the trial Court commencing to hear arguments on the suit, is hence imperative whereupon, the apposite relief stood enjoined to be accorded to the plaintiff by the learned trial Court. The Relevant provisions of Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the CPC read as under:- "14. Documents relied on in plaint.- Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies- (1)....... (2)....... The Relevant provisions of Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the CPC read as under:- "14. Documents relied on in plaint.- Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies- (1)....... (2)....... (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 annexe 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." 3. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed and the order impugned hereat is quashed and set aside. In sequel, the application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the Civil Procedure Code is allowed and learned trial Court is directed to permit the plaintiff/petitioner herein to adduce into evidence copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-2003. Records be sent back forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 13th April, 2017. All pending applications also stand disposed of.