JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioners, defendants in Title Suit No.58 of 2002, are aggrieved of order dated 22.03.2010 by which plaintiff''s application for taking Xerox copy of applications dated 04.10.2000 and 10.10.2000 and for calling the President, Jamshedpur Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Jamshedpur to prove these applications has been allowed. 2. Order-Vii Rule 14 CPC mandates that at the time of presentation of the plaint the plaintiff shall produce the document on which his case is founded [sub-rule 1] and if such document is not in his possession wherever it is possible he shall aver in whose possession the document is [sub-rule 2). However, under sub-rule-3 to Order-VII Rule 14 CPC parties may be permitted to adduce additional evidence but with leave of the court. Powers under sub-rule 3 to Rule 14 of Order-VII CPC can be exercised by the court only when it is found that such evidence is required for adjudicating the real controversy involved in the suit and there is sufficient foundation laid in the pleadings of the parties. Order-XIII Rule 1 CPC mandates that before framing of issues the parties shall produce the original documents. 3. From the scheme of the Code it can be inferred that an additional document can be admitted in evidence with leave of the court, however, the restrictions mentioned under Order-VII, Order-XIII and other provisions under the Code cannot be over-looked. Powers under Order-VI Rule 17 CPC under which parties may be permitted to amend the pleadings also runs on similar legislative sentiments. Nowhere in the plaint the plaintiff has averred about the applications dated 04.10.2000 and 10.10.2000 and their relevance. The suit is for a decree for specific performance of agreement dated 30.12.2000. Evidently, the issue involved in the suit is validity of the agreement to sale dated 30.12.2000. Plea urged on behalf of the plaintiff, that for corroborating his stand that the defendant no.1 has entered into an agreement with him on authorization of her son and daughter which would stand established from the application dated 04.10.2000 which was filed by the defendant no.1 for entering her name in the record of society and application 10.10.2000 which has been filed by her son under which he has relinquished his rights in favour of defendant no.1, is beyond the pleadings. The sale agreement was denied by the defendants in their written statement, however, the application dated 02.07.2007 was filed after the plaintiff examined himself and other 4 witnesses. It is contended that he himself has also not spoken about the aforesaid applications. 4. The trial Judge has observed that only when certified copy of the document is produced original can be called for and some of the questions, such as, whether certified copy has been granted by the Jamshedpur Co-operative House Building Society Limited or not and whether the society is authorized to issue certified copy, have not been answered by the defendants, allowed the application dated 02.07.2007. The aforesaid reasons reflected in the impugned order dated 22.03.2010 are absurd. It runs contrary to the settled law for admitting additional documents. Besides finding that there was no merit in the plea taken by the plaintiff for taking applications dated 04.10.2000 and 10.10.2000 on record, it needs to be recorded that if such a procedure is permitted during the trial of a suit it would become an unending process which in view of several amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure is not the legislative intendment. 5. In the above facts, finding that the trial Judge has exercised a jurisdiction which is not legally vested in it, the impugned order dated 22.03.2010 is found unsustainable in law. Finding serious infirmity in the order dated 22.03.2010, it is set-aside. The writ petition is allowed. Interim order dated 19.07.2010 is vacated. The trial in Title Suit No.58 of 2002 shall now commence in accordance with law, however, applications dated 04.10.2000 and 10.10.2000 shall be excluded from consideration.