JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"), whereby petitioner's application dated 24.01.2017, under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) has been rejected with the following observations:- ^^lquk x;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA bl izkFkZuk i= ds tfj;s oknh tc i=koyh lk{; oknh esa eqdjZjh rks ,d nLrkost tks ikfjokfnd fookn ds laca/k esa bdjkjukek gksf'k;kj dh lEifr ds laca/k esa fnukad 10-10-2010 dks iapk;r esa QSlyk gqvk Fkk bl QSlyukek tks fd 50 :i;s ds LVkEi ij fy[kk x;k gS] dks izLrqr djuk pkgk gSA izFker% ;g nLrkost tc okn is'k fd;k vFkok la'kksf/kr okn is'k fd;k ml le; u rks bldh QksVksizfr is'k dh xbZ vkSj u gh bl nLrkost ds laca/k esa okn esa dksbZ ftdz gSA bl nLrkost dks dwVjfpr gksus dh laHkkouk izfroknh us trkbZ gSA bl bdjkjukek esa jktLFkku esa xkao 13 vkjch ds eq0ua0 27 dh lk<+s+ X;kjg ch?kk Hkwfe tks fd fceyk nsoh ds uke jftLVjh djokus ds fy, lacaf/kr gS] dk mYys[k crkus ds fy;s ;g nLrkost is'k fd;k gSA bl nLrkost ds gkf'k;s ij fd;s x;s gLrk{kj fceyk nsoh o d'ehj flag ds gks] bl ckjs esa Hkh lansg O;Dr fd;k x;k gS pwafd ;g nLrkost bl fookn esa lqlaxr ugha gS] ek= iSjk la0 2 esa ml Hkwfe dk mYys[k dj tehu dh jftLV~h djokus dh lgefr fy[kuk vius vki esa lansg dkfjr djrk gS vkSj eq[; vkifr ;g gS fd mDr nLrkost brus o"kZ rd D;ksa is'k ugha fd;k x;k] bldk dksbZ dkj.k Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gSA ?kj esa j[k dj Hkwy tkuk] ;g dkj.k okftc dkj.k ugha gSA vr% ;g izkFkZuk i= bl LVst ij Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS vkSj nLrkost dks fjdkMZ+ ij fy;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vr% vkns'k 7 fu;e 14 /kkjk lhihlh dk izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k lquk;k x;kA i=koyh okLrs lk{; oknh gsrq fnuakd 28-08-2017 dks is'k gksA^^ 2. The facts involved in the present case are that the petitioner-plaintiff had instituted a suit for specific performance of an Agreement dated 08.04.1993. The facts involved in the present case are that the petitioner-plaintiff had instituted a suit for specific performance of an Agreement dated 08.04.1993. The suit which was filed in the year 2010, when reached at the stage of evidence, the petitioner-plaintiff moved the above referred application dated 24.01.2017 and sought leave to place on record an Agreement/Decision dated 11.10.2010 taken by the Panchayat. 3. The reasons mentioned for grant of said application were that the said document has been traced out a few days ago (10 days ago) and the same was necessary for the adjudication of the suit in question. The defendant opposed the said application and objected to the request of taking the said document on record by filing a reply. 4. The learned Trial Court rejected the said application on various counts, including the delay and advanced stage of the suit and further because neither there was any reference of the said document in the plaint nor in the amended plaint. Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenging the order dated 18.08.2017, contended that the Court below has erred in rejecting petitioner's application, doubting the genuineness of the document in question and observing that the signature of Smt. Bimla Devi and Kashmir Singh inscribed on the said document appears to be forged. Mr. Purohit contended that signatures and genuineness of the document cannot be examined or questioned, while deciding the application under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code. In support of his argument, Mr. Purohit relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered in the matter of Abdul Mueed & Ors. v. Hammad Ahmed & Ors., reported in 2016 (4) Civil Court Cases 733 (Delhi), particularly para-19 thereof, which is being reproduced hereunder:- "19. As already noted above, in the application filed under Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC on oath, the petitioner has made averments that the documents sought to be filed came to the knowledge of the petitioner only on 20.07.2010. Needless to add, the respondents have vehemently denied this contention that the petitioners had no knowledge about these documents prior to filing of the suit. None of the parties have been able to show any evidence on this issue. However, a specific averment on oath is made by the petitioner that the plaintiff/petitioner has come to know about these documents only on 20.07.2010. None of the parties have been able to show any evidence on this issue. However, a specific averment on oath is made by the petitioner that the plaintiff/petitioner has come to know about these documents only on 20.07.2010. Hence, it would be appropriate to accept the said plea. Further, the respondent has not been able to show any substantial prejudice being caused to it if the documents are permitted to be taken on record. The impugned order rejecting the application for placing on record additional documents is erroneous." 5. While referring the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner claimed parity and contended that in both the cases, indication or averments regarding the contentious document was absent in the plaint, yet Delhi High Court has granted leave to produce the subject document(s) on record. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, including the judgment cited at Bar. 7. A perusal of the order under challenge, passed by the Court below shows that the Trial Court has rejected petitioner's application, essentially because there was no averment in relation to the Agreement dated 11.10.2010 in the plaint and even in the amended plaint, no such reference was made. Further, a perusal of the pleadings of the parties reveal that the petitioner's/plaintiff's case was not on the basis of the said Agreement and in a suit for specific performance of the Agreement, importance and relevance of the said Agreement dated 11.10.2010 reference thereof has not been made earlier, cannot be believed. 8. It may be true that the observations of the Court below in relation to the genuineness of the document and signature of Bimla Devi and Kashmir Singh thereupon are not germane, nevertheless the order under consideration passed by the Court below is in harmony and consonance with the principles governing the adjudication of the application under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code. 9. So far as the judgment of Delhi High Court relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to observe that in the case before the Delhi High Court, the Court had recorded a finding that though the documents in question were in the knowledge of the applicant/petitioner, the application for taking the documents could not be rejected. 9. So far as the judgment of Delhi High Court relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to observe that in the case before the Delhi High Court, the Court had recorded a finding that though the documents in question were in the knowledge of the applicant/petitioner, the application for taking the documents could not be rejected. As contrast to the facts before the Delhi High Court, in the present case, the petitioner was very much aware of the execution and existence of the said Agreement and the ignorance about such Agreement had not been pleaded by the petitioner. 10. When the existence or execution of the Agreement dated 11.10.2010 was admitted by the petitioner, he cannot be permitted to place the same after seven years of institution of the suit, merely because, the Agreement has been found at a belated stage. The delay in filing a document can be tolerated or condoned, if the document has come to the knowledge subsequently, but if the document was very much in the knowledge of the applicant, the delay in filing the same and the stage of suit becomes very relevant. 11. In overall analysis of the facts and law, there is no infirmity in the order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the Court below, particularly looking to the stage of the suit and that no reference thereof was made in the plaint. 12. I find no force in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed hereby.