JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is defendant no.2 in Title (Partition) Suit No.06 of 2004. He is aggrieved of order dated 30.05.2017 by which an application calling for admission register of Aadarsh Madhya Vidyalaya, Kayasthpara, Jamtara has been allowed. 2. In Title (Partition) Suit No.06 of 2004 adoption deed by which defendant no.1 has been adopted by the defendant no.4 is under challenge. During pendency of the suit, after the issues were settled, an application was filed on 11.07.2014 for calling for admission register from J.B.C Higher Secondary School, Jamtara and for summoning clerk of the said school for proving the admission register. This application was dismissed by an order dated 19.11.2016. About six months thereafter a similar application was filed on 01.05.2017 for calling for admission register of Aadarsh Madhya Vidyalaya, Kayasthpara, Jamtara observing that the stand of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 was studying in Aadarsh Madhya Vidyalaya, Kayasthpara, Jamtara is a departure from his previous stand which distinguishes the present application from the one previously filed on 11.07.2014, the trial judge has allowed application dated 01.05.2017. Aggrieved, the defendant no.2 has approached this Court. 3. Contending that ignoring the contradictions in the stand of the plaintiff in his applications dated 11.07.2014 and 01.05.2017, Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second application filed on similar grounds has wrongly been allowed by the trial judge. 4. Mr. Rohitashya Roy, the learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the real controversy involved in the suit revolves around age of the defendant no.1, which, if conclusively decided, would affect the outcome of the suit and therefore the admission register of the school becomes a relevant document. 5. Order dated 19.11.2016 passed on the application filed by the plaintiff on 11.07.2014 and the impugned order dated 30.05.2017 would disclose that the trial court has noticed that there is no pleading by the plaintiff in respect of study by defendant no.1 either in Aadarsh Madhya Vidyalaya, Kayasthpara, Jamtara or J.B.C Higher Secondary School, Jamtara. Photo copy of the admit-card which was produced along with application dated 11.07.2014 is not a document which has been tendered by the plaintiff along with the list of documents. No issue pertaining to age of defendant no.1 except, validity of the Adoption Deed dated 11.09.1997, has been framed in the suit. Photo copy of the admit-card which was produced along with application dated 11.07.2014 is not a document which has been tendered by the plaintiff along with the list of documents. No issue pertaining to age of defendant no.1 except, validity of the Adoption Deed dated 11.09.1997, has been framed in the suit. Order XIII Rule 1 CPC provides that before settlement of issues parties shall produce the original documents. Order XVI Rule 1 CPC provides that within 15 days or within such time as may be fixed by the court, parties shall produce list of witnesses whom they intend to examine or through whom seek production of a document. At no stage either clerk of J.B.C Higher Secondary School, Jamtara has been cited as a witness or admission register of Aadarsh Madhya Vidyalaya, Kayasthpara, Jamtara is sought to be produced by the plaintiff. Order VII Rule 14 (1) CPC provides at the time of institution of the suit the plaintiff shall produce the document upon which he has raised a claim, and if the document is not in his possession or custody, the plaintiff is required to make a statement in whose custody the document is(refer, Sub-rule 2). No doubt, under Sub-rule 3 to Rule 14 of Order VII CPC the court can permit production of any other document and under Order XVI Rule1 (3) CPC the court can permit examination of a witness who ought to have been examined but not examined, however, such powers can be exercised by the court only in the context of pleadings of the parties and upon recording a satisfaction that such document is necessary for adjudicating the real controversy in the suit. In the application dated 01.05.2017 the plaintiff has failed to give a reason why the admission register of Aadarsh Madhya Vidyalaya, Kayasthpara, Jamtara was not included in the list of documents; in fact, there is no pleading in the plaint on this issue. On relevancy of the admission register, the trial judge has not recorded its satisfaction, as mandated in law. 6. In the aforesaid facts, finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.05.2017, it is set-aside. The writ petition is allowed. Admission register, if already called for, shall be excluded from consideration by the trial judge.