JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. Under challenge is the order dated 6.3.2018 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur dismissing the petitioner-plaintiff's (hereinafter 'plaintiff') application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC read with section 151 CPC on the ground of delay of about 5 years in seeking to bring certain documents on record of the trial court. 2. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the documents in issue in the application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC were certified copies of the proceedings in the suit no. 62/2012 before the Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No. 34, Jaipur Metropolitan (Chaksu). Their genuineness was and could not be in doubt and they were very material to the adjudication of Issue No. 5 before the Trial Court in the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction [no. 53/2010 (94/15)] before the Additional Civil Judge No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur. He submitted that the delay in moving the application could be compensated by appropriate costs being allowed to the defendant. 3. Heard. Considered. 4. Subsequent permission to file documents in support of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC is a matter of discretion of the Trial Court-which discretion is to be exercised by the trial court dependent on the facts of a case before it. Admittedly in the instant case the application at the plaintiff's instance under Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC to bring on record certified copies of order sheets in suit no. 62/2012 aforesaid was filed at the stage of rebuttal of evidence in the year 2017. Admittedly the plaintiff had knowledge of the said documents since 2012. No plausible reason was set out in the application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC for condoning the five year delay. The permission for allowing belated filing of documents in support of the suit being a matter of discretion, delay in moving the application is indeed relevant. Noting the 5 year delay in filing certain documents to buttress the plaintiff's case, the trial court has rightly refused to exercise its discretion. Neither capriciousness nor perversity be attributed to the trial court. It is universal knowledge that the delays in conclusion of trials are a matter of grave public concern and comment and the adage is justice delayed is justice denied. Abstract arguments of "interest of justice" in counter, are over done. Neither capriciousness nor perversity be attributed to the trial court. It is universal knowledge that the delays in conclusion of trials are a matter of grave public concern and comment and the adage is justice delayed is justice denied. Abstract arguments of "interest of justice" in counter, are over done. Costs are not always a panacea to gloss over the public interest of efficiency in the administration of justice. 5. Reliance placed by counsel for the plaintiff on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of [ (2017) 3 DNJ 1204 ] titled Smt. Nairaj Devi wife of Shri Umrav v. Smt. Aruna Kanwar wife of Shri Shailendra Singh & Others is in opposite. The facts in the aforesaid case were wholly different from one's in the instant case. Therein the Trial Court had exercised its discretion under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC and a challenge thereto was negated by the Court for reason of its disinclination to interfere with the trial court's discretion in absence of perversity or capriciousness. 6. The petition is without force.