JUDGMENT : ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed assailing the impugned order dated 01.04.2021 passed in T.S. No. 545/2007 by which the learned Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati rejected the petition filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC read with Section 151 of the said Code. 3. The background facts: The background fact of the present litigation can be summarized as follows: (I) The petitioner as plaintiff instituted a suit being T.S. No. 545/2007 before the learned court of Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati praying for a decree of declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession, cancellation of a sale deed being sale deed No. 3106/2001 dated 02.04.2001 and another sale deed being sale deed No. 936/02 dated 08.02.2002 and for permanent injunction. (II) It is an admitted fact that at the time of filing of the plaint, the plaintiff had not annexed any document, which the plaintiff relied on in support of his case. (III) On notice being served, the defendant appeared and filed written statement. (IV) Thereafter, issues were framed and plaintiff as PW-1 filed evidence on affidavit on 03.11.2009 alongwith 25 numbers of exhibits and the said plaintiff was cross-examined on 20.02.2010, 18.03.2010 and 29.04.2010. (V) Though those documents were exhibited and defendant cross-examined on the aforesaid documents, however on an objection raised by the defendant on the admissibility of the said exhibits for the reason that those were not part of the plaint nor those were given at the time of fixing a date for issues and document, and accordingly the learned trial court under its order dated 14.06.2010 directed that the objection raised by the defendant will be considered at the time of argument. (VI) Thereafter, the remaining plaintiff’s witnesses were cross-examined. Defendants laid its evidences as DWs and plaintiff also cross-examined those defendant’s witnesses. (VII) Thereafter, 04.02.2020 at the time of argument the plaintiff side filed the aforesaid application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of the CPC with a prayer to accept those documents which were exhibited alongwith the evidence of PW-1. Defendants laid its evidences as DWs and plaintiff also cross-examined those defendant’s witnesses. (VII) Thereafter, 04.02.2020 at the time of argument the plaintiff side filed the aforesaid application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of the CPC with a prayer to accept those documents which were exhibited alongwith the evidence of PW-1. (VIII) The defendant side filed objection to the said application and on the basis of said application and objection the learned trial court passed the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff to accept those documents as exhibits. 4. Submission of petitioner: Mr. D Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits the following: (I) Though the plaintiff did not annex any document alongwith the plaint, however, there were mentions of those documents in the plaint as well as there are reflections in the pleadings that the plaintiff relied on those documents. (II) It is further submitted by Mr. Mazumdar that the averments made in the plaint are based only on those exhibits and it will be discernible from the evidence on affidavit that the those documents were annexed in support of the pleadings made in the plaint as well as on the evidence on affidavit. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant, if those documents are accepted. (III) Mr. Mazumdar further argues that the plaintiff had not raised any objection in the written statement rather they had filed the written statement refuting those pleadings made in the plaint based on those documents which are exhibited along with the affidavit. Therefore, in that count also no prejudice has been caused no prejudice shall be caused if such documents are allowed to be accepted as exhibit. (IV) He further submits that the procedure is handmaid of justice and procedure and technical hurdle shall not be allowed to come in a way of the court while doing substantive justice. However, while rejecting the application, the learned trial court has ignored such settled proposition of law and mechanically dismissed the petition. (V) He further submits the fact also remains that the learned court below has not passed any order rejecting the exhibits and kept it pending for determination at the time of argument only and therefore, at the stage of argument the learned court ought not to have rejected such application. (VI) In support of such contention, Mr. (V) He further submits the fact also remains that the learned court below has not passed any order rejecting the exhibits and kept it pending for determination at the time of argument only and therefore, at the stage of argument the learned court ought not to have rejected such application. (VI) In support of such contention, Mr. Mazumdar also relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Another vs. P. Rajkumar Represented by his Power Agent Imam OLI, (2020) 10 SCC 706 . (VII) Mr. Mazumdar further submits that it is the object of the court to bring out the truth and therefore in the present case also bringing out the truth is the essence and if the evidences are allowed to be treated as exhibits, the truth will come out and same will also not prejudice the defendant for the reason that the defendants had already cross-examined the plaintiff on those pleadings. (VIII) Mr. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel also submits that there is no delay in filing the application as the learned court below itself has decided that the matter shall be taken up at the time of argument and the petitioner as an abandoned caution has filed the application at the stage of argument. So therefore, it cannot be said that the application was filed at the belated stage. (IX) Mr. Mazumdar further relies on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cable Corporation of India Ltd. Mumbai vs. Sanghi Industries Ltd. AIR 2003 A.P. 282 : (2003) 3 Civ. L.J. 43 and Monowar Hussain vs. Manoranjan Das, AIR 2016 Gau. 62 : (2016) Gau. L.R. 298. 5. Submission of respondents: Per contra, Mr. S Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent submits as follows: (I) The provision of Order 7 Rule 14 Sub-rule 2 and 3 is mandatory in nature and the plaintiff ought to have filed the documents it relied upon. It is mandatory on the part of the plaintiff to annex and supply along with the plaint the documents that the plaintiff relies on in support of his case. However, such document has not been annexed with the plaint nor the same has been submitted before the court at the time, when the matter was fixed for settlement of issues and production of documents. However, such document has not been annexed with the plaint nor the same has been submitted before the court at the time, when the matter was fixed for settlement of issues and production of documents. Therefore, the defendant could only file his defence without having the copy of those documents, which subsequently the plaintiff wanted to rely on in proof of his case and if such documents are allowed to be exhibited the same will wholly prejudice the case of the plaintiff and if such documents are allowed at this stage the suit is to be remanded back at a stage when at the stage of WS and plaintiff should be allowed to file a written statement, which will require denovo trial and the same will prejudice the defendant. (II) He further submits that barring few documents, none of the total 25 documents were mentioned in the plaint and therefore, it is not correct to say that the plaintiff made statement regarding those statements. (III) The learned counsel further submits that the cross-examination was done on 29.04.2010. On that date, the defendant had raised objection regarding the admissibility of documents. However the plaintiff had filed its application on 04.02.2020 i.e. almost after 10 years. Therefore, on this count alone, the present application is liable to be dismissed. (IV) The further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the whole ground for not annexing the documents along with the plaint is stated to be the ignorance of law and ignorance of law cannot be a ground for such excuses inasmuch as the plaintiff himself is an Advocate. (V) It is further submitted that the case was fixed for argument on 17.05.2012 and same continued till 04.02.2020 and during this period many dates have been fixed for argument but the plaintiff has not filed such application. Therefore, such litigant should not be granted relief in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (VI) It is further submitted that in the cases relied on by the learned Senior Counsel including Sugandhi (supra) satisfactory explanation was given, however, in the present case no explanation what so ever is given except the ignorance of law. Therefore, such ground is not sustainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. (VI) It is further submitted that in the cases relied on by the learned Senior Counsel including Sugandhi (supra) satisfactory explanation was given, however, in the present case no explanation what so ever is given except the ignorance of law. Therefore, such ground is not sustainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. (VII) He further submits that the learned trial court has not committed error of jurisdiction, therefore, the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as this court exercises its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, when there is a jurisdictional error or a failure of justice. In the present case there is no failure of justice inasmuch as the plaintiff has got enough time to get their defect corrected. For the fault of the plaintiff, the defendant should not be allowed to suffer. (VIII) It is submitted that as the documents were not available at the time of filing of written statement, the defendant could not adduce any rebuttal evidence which has caused serious prejudice to him. As the documents were all within possession, knowledge and power of the plaintiff, the failure of the plaintiff to produce those documents at the time of filing the plaint or at the subsequent stage at the earliest opportunity, will seriously prejudice the plaintiff. (IX) In support his case he relies on the decision of Surjya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 675 and Thiruvengada Pillai vs. Navaneethammal, AIR 2008 SCC Supp. 1542. 6. Decision and reasons: I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. (I) For proper adjudication, let this court first look into the document sought to be exhibited and corresponding pleadings in plaint and written statement and also the cross-examination in the following manner: Documents Pleading in plaint Cross-examination Ext.1 Judgment passed by Executive Magistrate, Kamrup. At paragraph 5 pleaded regarding filing of the case under Section 145/146 of Cr.P.C. and direction issued in it. No cross-examination Ext.2 police report. Police report is a part of proceeding of Case No. 148 M/1995 before Executive Magistrate. No specific pleading made. No cross-examination Ext.3 receipt dated 27.09.2000 against permission fees. Pleaded at paragraph 5 regarding permission fee and construction of boundary wall. Cross-examined Ext.4 NOC by GMC for construction of boundary wall. No cross-examination Ext.2 police report. Police report is a part of proceeding of Case No. 148 M/1995 before Executive Magistrate. No specific pleading made. No cross-examination Ext.3 receipt dated 27.09.2000 against permission fees. Pleaded at paragraph 5 regarding permission fee and construction of boundary wall. Cross-examined Ext.4 NOC by GMC for construction of boundary wall. No specific pleading but not relates to Ext.3 and construction of boundary wall. Cross-examined Ext.5 Sale Deed 7733/2001 dated 20.09.2001. Pleaded at paragraph 3. Cross-examined Ext.5(i) NOC issued by GMDA. Pleaded at paragraph 3. Cross-examined Ext.5(ii) NOC issued by Deputy Commissioner Kamrup. Pleaded at paragraph 3. No cross-examination Ext.6 Sale deed No. 544 (A) dated 06.05.1975 relating to purchase of land by Gopal Priya Devi. No pleading regarding such sale deed, however it is pleaded at paragraph 3 that plaintiff purchased the land from Gopal Priya Devi. Cross-examined Ext.7 Sale deed no. 1503 of 1971 dated 16.02.1971 relating to purchase of land by Keshab Sarma from Saruram Rabha. Though number of the sale deed not pleaded, however, it is pleaded that Keshab Ch. Sarma purchased a specific land from Saruram Rabha. Cross-examined Ext.8 death certificate of Gopal Priya Devi. Pleaded at paragraph 3 that Gopal Priya Devi expired on 17.10.2001. No cross-examination Ext.9 Sketch map of Dag No. 332. No specific pleading regarding sketch map however there are pleadings at different paragraph including paragraph 9, 4 relating to Dag No. 332 and regarding ownership of the said Dag. Cross-examined Ext.10 Jamabandi of Patta No. 112. Patta No. 112 and Dags thereunder are mentioned at paragraph 4 and 5 and the ownership of the same. No cross-examination Ext.11 Order of ASO in Mutation Case No. 45/97. It is pleaded at paragraph No. 4 on the death of plaintiff’s father plaintiff corrected revenue record in the year 1997. No cross-examination Ext.12 Sale deed no. 1504/71 by which Keshab Ch. Sarma purchased land of Dag No. 331. There is a mention at paragraph No. 4 regarding Dag No. 331 and that Keshab Sarma purchased it. Cross-examined Ext.13 Deed No. 8180/73 (purchased by Rudreswar Sarma from Keshab Sarma). There is mention at paragraph 4 that Rudreswar Sarma is the father of the plaintiff. Cross-examined Ext.14 Sale deed No. 3011 of 62 purchased by Pabindra and Surendra Nath Bhattacharyya. No pleading. No cross-examination Ext.15 FIR dated 27.08.97. Pleaded at Para 10 of the plaint. Cross-examined Ext.13 Deed No. 8180/73 (purchased by Rudreswar Sarma from Keshab Sarma). There is mention at paragraph 4 that Rudreswar Sarma is the father of the plaintiff. Cross-examined Ext.14 Sale deed No. 3011 of 62 purchased by Pabindra and Surendra Nath Bhattacharyya. No pleading. No cross-examination Ext.15 FIR dated 27.08.97. Pleaded at Para 10 of the plaint. No cross-examination Ext.16 Seizure list of power of attorney. Seizure list is a part of proceeding of police case No. 280/97 as pleaded in Para 10. Cross-examined Ext.17 Dispur PS Case No. 24/2001. Pleaded in Para 6 of the plaint. Cross-examined Ext.18 Police report of Panbazar Police Case No. 280/1997 and Dispur Police Case No. 24/2001. Police case is mentioned in the plaint in 10 and Para 6. Cross-examined Ext.19 and 20 Various criminal proceeding against Manoj Kalita. No pleading in plaint. No cross-examination Ext.21 Misc. (J) No. 10/2004-2005 before Settlement Officer. Pleaded in Para 8. Cross-examined Ext.22 Sale Deed No. 8158 dated 09.11.2000. Pleaded in Para 9. Cross-examined Ext.23, 23(1) and 23(2) Documents in respect of Manoj Kalita @ Barman. No pleading. Cross-examined (II) From the aforesaid, it is clear that the pleading in the plaint is having a relation with the documents exhibited. The defendant has not raised any specific plea at the initial stage of filing written statement regarding non compliance of provision of Order 7 Rule 14. In the plaint there are mention of the vital document exhibited and certain incidents, which relates to the fact pleaded. It is seen from the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses that though objection regarding exhibiting such documents were raised for the reason of non-compliance of the provision of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, however, the witnesses were cross-examined on most of the vital exhibited documents. The fact also remains that the learned trial court below had not taken any decision to the objection in exhibiting the documents immediately rather it deferred the decision till the stage of argument. In the meantime, the other PW-s were examined and cross-examined, the DWs were examined and cross-examined. In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop, now this court is to determine whether at this stage it can be permitted to exhibit the documents and if such permission is granted whether the defendant shall irreparably and seriously be prejudiced. In the meantime, the other PW-s were examined and cross-examined, the DWs were examined and cross-examined. In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop, now this court is to determine whether at this stage it can be permitted to exhibit the documents and if such permission is granted whether the defendant shall irreparably and seriously be prejudiced. (III) From the aforesaid table and pleading, it is seen that the plaintiff through their pleading claimed the right title and interest over the suit land by virtue of certain sale deeds and also pleaded mutation in their favour. The plaintiff also pleaded existence of certain disputes, prior to filing of the suit and decision of Executive Magistrate and also pleaded regarding existence of certain criminal cases. The document exhibited relates to the pleading made and those are not germane to the pleading made. The facts also remain that the defendant has not raised any specific plea in the written statement regarding non-adherence of the provision of Order 7 Rule 14. From the materials on record, it is also seen that the plaintiff witnesses were duly cross-examined by the defendant’s counsel touching not only the pleading of the plaintiff but also on most of the documents exhibited. (IV) In case of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370 , the Hon’ble Apex court held that truth should be the guiding star in entire judicial process and truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. Discovering truth is not only mandate but obligation and bounding duty of the Judges. While dealing with certain earlier decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court further held that court must give greater emphasis on the veracity of pleading and document in order to ascertain the truth. (V) In case of Sugandhi (supra), the Hon’ble Apex court while dealing with provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code held that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdle shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. It was further held that if the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, court must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying on procedural and technical violation. In this decision also, the Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that court should take appropriate steps to trace out the underlying truth in every disputes. It was further held that if the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, court must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying on procedural and technical violation. In this decision also, the Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that court should take appropriate steps to trace out the underlying truth in every disputes. (VI) In the aforesaid factual background and settled proposition of law, the object of the court should be to take out the truth whether the story pleaded by the plaintiff is correct or the defendant is correct. To bring out such truth, in the considered opinion of this court, consideration of the exhibited documents shall be necessary and in absence of such exhibits, a just decision cannot be arrived at. (VII) As the defendant have substantially cross-examined the plaintiffs on pleading and on most of the exhibits, in the considered opinion of this court no serious prejudice shall be caused to the defendant side, if the documents so exhibited are directed to be taken on record. (VIII) This court is also of the further opinion that interest of the defendant can still be protected, if they are given a chance to again cross-examine the witnesses who had exhibited the documents/exhibits. (IX) This court is also of the view that the plaintiff has not acted promptly when it was necessary and delayed the matter. The plaintiff could have filed an application for producing those documents during filing of his evidence on affidavit or at best could have file such application at the stage immediately after his cross-examination, when the objection to the documents were raised, but awaited till the time of argument. Therefore, this court of the view that the defendant is entitled for some cost for this lethargic behavior of the plaintiff and such cost is determined at Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. (X) This court is also of the view that in the given fact and circumstance of the present case, the procedural and technical hurdle shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice inasmuch as in the given fact of the present case, substantial justice shall prevail, if the exhibited documents are allowed to be accepted as exhibits. (XI) As this court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has rejected the petition on hyper technicalities and insisted on the procedural law and also passed the impugned order in ignorance of the settled proposition of law as discussed hereinabove resulting in miscarriage of justice and therefore, this court is within its competence and jurisdiction to pass such order even in terms of the ratio laid down in the case of Surjya Dev Rai (supra). In the given fact of the present case, the ratio laid down in Thiruvengada Pillai (supra) shall have no application in the present case. 7. Directions: Therefore in the fact and circumstance in the present case and also considering the settled proposition of law as discussed hereinabove, the present revision petition is allowed in the following terms: (I) The plaintiff shall present before the learned trial court be allowed to formally exhibit the documents already exhibited along with his evidence on affidavit and the learned court below shall formally mark those exhibits. (II) The defendant shall be given an opportunity to cross-examine the PW-1, if so desires. (III) Thereafter, the learned court below shall proceed with the matter. (IV) The plaintiff shall deposit the cost of Rs. 25,000/- before the learned court below and the same may be given to the defendant. 8. While parting with the record, it is made clear that any observations made in the present petition touching the merit of pleading and documents should not influence the learned trial court in finally deciding the suit and same needs to be decided in terms of settled proposition of law. The observation made in the present petition by this court is only for the purpose of the determination of the present lis and not on the merit of the claims and counter claims of the parties.