JUDGMENT Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. - Heard Sri N. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.187 of 2015 filed by the plaintiff/respondent, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, for specific performance of contract. 3. In the said suit, the defendant at the time of cross examination of the plaintiff as PW 1, asked about the plaintiff's capacity and readiness to fulfill the specific performance, in particular, with respect to the capacity of the plaintiff to pay. The plaintiff therefore filed I.A.No.179 of 2023 along with documents i.e., salary certificates etc., with request to receive the same. 4. After contest, the said application has been allowed by the learned trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 23.03.2023. 5. The application was filed under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC. 6. Order VII Rule 14 CPC reads as under: '14 . Documents relied on in Plaint.- Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon 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. (2) Where any such documents not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) 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, shall not without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.' 7. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.' 7. As per sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, the 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, shall not without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. 8. As per sub-rule (3), the Court may grant leave to receive those documents in evidence, which were not filed along with the plaint or not entered in the list of documents. It is settled in law that Rule 14 (3) saves the power of the Court to grant leave to produce such document at a later stage. The Court has a wide discretion to allow production of documents at a later stage having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 9. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court has granted the leave. The reason assigned is that those documents, in view of the submissions advanced and pleadings, are necessary to prove the capacity and readiness of the plaintiff, in the suit, and are necessary to come to just conclusion. The trial Court has also observed that if the documents are received, no prejudice would be caused to the present petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction of the learned trial Court in granting such leave. 11. I do not find any illegality in the exercise of such jurisdiction and in the grant of leave by the trial Court for the reasons assigned in the orders, which advances the substantial cause of justice. 12. No case to interfere with the impugned order, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is made out, which is not to be invoked in regular course. 13. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.