JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner who is defendant in Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2010 is aggrieved of order dated 26.03.2012 by which the trial Judge has permitted the plaintiffs to produce rent receipts issued to Apsara Shoe House from January 1995 to March, 2003 and some counter-foils. 2. Stand taken by the defendant is that at a belated stage permission to produce a document which has not been referred to in the plaint cannot be granted. 3. Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2010 was instituted by M.M. Bhadani and Brothers and two of its partners namely, Pankaj Kumar Bhadani and K. N. Bhadani for ejection of the defendant from the suit schedule property on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent and for a decree for realization of arrears of rent from December 2009 to May 2010. In the written statement the defendant disputed that the plaintiffs are owner of the suit premises and, that it is tenant under other co-owners of the suit property. During pendency of the eviction suit an application was filed by the plaintiffs on 02.03.2012 for producing the holding receipts, notices and counter-foils. 4. Stand taken by the plaintiffs is that when the defendant disputed ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit premises it became necessary for them to produce some documents which would prima-facie indicate their ownership over the suit property. 5. Order VII Rule 14(1) CPC provides that at the time of presentation of the plaint the plaintiff shall produce the document upon which his claim is founded. Under Rule 14(3) with leave of the court the plaintiff may produce a document which ought to have been produced by him when the plaint was presented but was not presented. Stand taken by the defendant that the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence are not referred to in the plaint and thus such documents cannot be admitted in evidence, in the facts of this case, is liable to be rejected. On admitted facts the plaintiffs have produced the rent receipts and counter-foils for the period between April 2003 to Novermber 2009. In the written statement the defendant admits that plaintiff no. 2-Pankaj Kumar Bhadani is one of the co-owners of the property still tenancy under the plaintiffs has been denied by it. On admitted facts the plaintiffs have produced the rent receipts and counter-foils for the period between April 2003 to Novermber 2009. In the written statement the defendant admits that plaintiff no. 2-Pankaj Kumar Bhadani is one of the co-owners of the property still tenancy under the plaintiffs has been denied by it. It is not that the rent receipts and notices of assessment tax and counter-foils of old rent receipts which are sought to be produced in evidence by the plaintiffs are altogether new and different documents rent receipts of subsequent years have been produced by the plaintiffs which may not have any bearing on adjudication of the plaintiffs'' claim over the suit premises. This has also to be kept in mind that powers under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC has to be exercised if a document sought to be produced is necessary for adjudication of real dispute between the parties. The application dated 02.03.2012 was filed by the plaintiffs when they were leading their evidence in Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2010. Evidently, it was not such a belated stage at which permission to the plaintiffs to lead additional evidence would cause prejudice to the defendant. 6. In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 26.03.2012 the writ petition is dismissed. 7. I.A No. 2763 of 2012 stands disposed of.