JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. These two petitions arise between the same parties challenging the order dated 10-9-2008 passed by the trial court Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereafter 'the trial court') in suit No. 6/2007, titled M/s. Shri Ahimsa Mines and Minerals Limited v. Narendra Kumar Jain and Another, dismissing two applications filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff'),one under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC and the other under Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC. 2. The trail court dismissing the application under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC has found that the rejoinder only sought to reiterate facts in the plaint denied in the written statement and further to bring on record certain facts regarding other litigation between the parties which were not germane to the issue in the suit. Counsel for the plaintiff has not been able to establish any capriciousness or perversity in the trial court's exercise of jurisdiction. It therefore warrants no interference. 3. Order 7, Rule 14 provides that where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is presented by him and shall at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC indeed provides that a document which ought to be produced in court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, may be produced but not without the leave of the court, and if leave is granted be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. 4. It is thus apparent that a document not produced in the first instance with the plaint, and not included in the list can subsequently be brought on record and be read in evidence only with the leave of the court. To grant leave clearly lies in the discretion of the trial court. It is well settled that where a discretion has to be exercised, the over all facts of the case have to be considered and it is no right of any party to avail it. 5. To grant leave clearly lies in the discretion of the trial court. It is well settled that where a discretion has to be exercised, the over all facts of the case have to be considered and it is no right of any party to avail it. 5. In the instant case the trial court has exercised its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's application Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff had not disclosed the necessity of the documents subsequently sought to be taken on record. And on facts the said documents in the context of the dispute before the trial court were irrelevant, the purpose of filing them was to delay the trial. 6. The discretion having exercised by the trial court in passing the two impugned orders for well detailed reasons, they suffers neither from any error of jurisdiction, nor are vitiated by any patent illegality or for that matter capriciousness. No interference in the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India therewith is therefore warranted. 7. The petitions are without force. Dismissed.