ORDER 1. Petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2017 passed by the Court of Seventh Additional District Judge, Gwalior, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners under the provisions of Order 8 rule 1(3) of CPC and Order 11 rule 14 CPC have been rejected. 2. It is petitioners' contention that the documents which were sought from the plaintiff vide application under Order 11 rule 14 CPC were relevant and when such documents were not filed by the plaintiff society, petitioners had obtained such documents and had produced them along with application under Order 11 rule 1(3) of CPC but the application for taking such documents has been rejected in illegal and arbitrary manner. 3. On the other hand counsel for the respondent No.1 Shri V.K.Bharadwaj, submits that this Court vide order dated 10.1.2017 in M.A.No.1130/2015 had directed the trial Court to make an endeavour to decide the suit within a period of four months from the date of the order and conduct the hearing on weekly basis without affording any undue adjournment to any party. He submits that in reply to the application under Order 8 rule 1(3) of CPC, they had categorically mentioned that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners were already in possession of the petitioners since 3.7.2014 and they had not made any attempt to produce such documents. It is also submitted that since the documents were in their possession, therefore, with a view to delay the proceeding and defeat the order of this Court passed in Miscellenous Appeal No.1130/2015 such applications under Order 11 rule 14 of CPC and under Order 8 rule 1(3) of CPC have been filed. No justification was given by the petitioners for not filing the documents which were in their possession since 2014. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the order passed by the Court of 7th Additional District Judge is fully justified and no interference is called for in the said order. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly observed that the provisions contained in Order 11rule 14 of CPC are for discovery of documents which are relevant to the controversy and not for the documents relating to the plaintiff society irrespective of their relevance. In the application under Order 11 rule 14 of CPC no relevancy has been shown for discovery of such documents. In the application under Order 11 rule 14 of CPC no relevancy has been shown for discovery of such documents. Similarly, the defendants had failed to justify that why the documents, which were in their possession since 3.7.2014, were not produced before the Court. In this regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Arvind v. Smt. Pushpa @ Devi as reported in, [ 2016(II) MPWN 88 ], wherein it has been held that the leave of the Court is not an empty formality unless cogent explanation is tendered not only as to its necessity for effective decision but also the reasons which prevented the party from not filing it though the case has processed to an advance stage. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that on this touchstone it is apparent from the language of the Order 8 rule 1(3) of CPC that the leave of the Court is not an empty formality and the Court has to apply its mind while granting such leave. In this case Court has applied its mind and has rightly come to the conclusion that since the petitioners were having these documents since 2014 and had not taken any pain to produce them at appropriate time, leave was refused by the Court in rightful manner. In view of such submission, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this juncture submits that the delay has been caused by the plaintiff itself inasmuch as they had not supplied the documents in response to the application under Order 11 rule 14 of CPC and therefore, the petitioner was forced to file an application under Order 8 rule 1 (3) of CPC causing delay in the matter. 5. This argument as has been put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners is contradictory and self contained inasmuch as it is apparent from the (Annexure P-4) that application under Order 11 rule 14 of CPC was filed on 26.4.2017 and on the same day application under Order 8 rule 1(3) of CPC was filed as is available in the file as (Annexure P-6). Therefore, the reason for delay is not justified and it is not the case of the petitioners that he had filed application under Order 11 rule 14 of CPC prior to obtaining the documents under RTI in July 2014 and after dismissal of that application and getting said documents had filed them promptly before the trial Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that because the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court for the delay in not producing the documents which were admittedly in their possession since July 2014, the learned Court below has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in rejecting both the applications i.e. under Order 11 rule 14 of CPC so also under Order 8 rule 1 (3) of CPC. Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.