JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, plaintiff in Partition Suit No.25 of 1994 is aggrieved of order dated 22.09.2011 by which his application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC has been declined. 2. The respondents have been validly served and some of them have appeared through Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, the learned counsel. 3. Partition Suit No.25 of 1994 has been instituted for a decree for partition to the extent of 13 8/9th share for him in schedule B and C properties, 8 Annas share in schedule D property and ^rd share in schedule E and schedule F as well as 1 Ath share in schedule G and H properties. In the pending suit after the issues were settled an application for taking copies of Hukumnama, Jamindari revenue receipt etc. was filed on 18.04.2011. Observing that 16 years after the suit was instituted the plaintiff cannot be permitted to adduce additional evidence, this application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.09.2011. 4. Order 7, Rule 14 CPC provides that at the time of presentation of the plaint the plaintiff shall produce the document on which he has laid a claim (sub-rule 1) and subrule 2 mandates that if such document is not in possession of the plaintiff he shall aver as far as practicable in whose possession or power the document is. Sub-rule 3 to Rule 14 to Order 7 CPC, however, carves out an exception to the aforesaid rules. It provides that the parties may lead additional evidence with leave of the court. The object behind subrule 3 to Rule 14 to Order 7 CPC is that a document which is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit shall be taken on record. It is an admitted position that the suit is running for the plaintiff''s evidence, however, he has yet to examine his witnesses. Evidently, the suit is at initial stage of the trial and therefore, in my opinion, at this stage the plaintiff cannot be precluded from producing additional documents. If the application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC is allowed, it shall not prejudice the defendants; after all it is a partition suit. 5. In the above facts and for the aforesaid reasons, finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.09.2011 it is set-aside. If the application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC is allowed, it shall not prejudice the defendants; after all it is a partition suit. 5. In the above facts and for the aforesaid reasons, finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.09.2011 it is set-aside. The defendants shall be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal and if necessary additional issue may be framed by the trial court. 6. The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.