JUDGMENT : BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J. This is an application seeking leave to disclose additional documents mentioned in paragraph no.20 of the application. 2. Affidavit in opposition, filed on behalf of the defendant-respondent is taken on record. 3. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff submits not to file any reply, however, the allegations made therein are not admitted. 4. Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the documents, which the applicant intends to produce and disclose are necessary and relevant documents as regards the issues involved in the suit. He also submits that despite due diligence, the said document could not be obtained at the initial point of time due to which the applicant was prevented from disclosing and producing those documents. Referring to Order VII Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’), he submits that the additional documents as per the aforesaid provisions can be produced with the leave of the Court and as such there cannot be any legal impediment in allowing the application seeking leave to disclose such additional documents. Relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Sugandhi (Dead) By Legal Representatives and Another versus P. Rajkumar Represented By His Power Agent Imam Oli reported in (2020) 10 SCC 706 , he submits that the procedure is the handmade of justice and procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice. He indicates that documents which the applicant intends to disclose in point nos. (ii) & (iii) of paragraph no.20 in respect of City Civil Court are petitions, written statement and Vakalatnama containing the signatures of the testator which is relevant in the present proceedings. He produces the copies of documents of the City Civil Court which the applicant intends to rely along with the other documents stated in paragraph no.20 of the application. Copies served upon the defendant- respondent. He seeks orders in terms of prayers (a) to (c) of the Master’s Summons. 5. On the contrary, Mr. Shayak Chakraborty, Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant-respondent submits that no such plausible reason has been spelt out in the application for not producing and disclosing the documents at the earlier point of time by the plaintiff. He seeks orders in terms of prayers (a) to (c) of the Master’s Summons. 5. On the contrary, Mr. Shayak Chakraborty, Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant-respondent submits that no such plausible reason has been spelt out in the application for not producing and disclosing the documents at the earlier point of time by the plaintiff. Prior to filing of the application the plaintiff was pressing to expedite the process of hearing and despite having the opportunity they failed to disclose the aforesaid documents. The reasons provided in the application are very casual in nature. Accordingly, the application needs to be dismissed in limini for want of reason for non-discloser and production of the documents. 6. In reply, Mr. Dasgupta learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the handwriting of the testator is a disputed fact in the present application for which the documents sought to be produced are relevant. 7. Admittedly, previously the applicant-plaintiff has disclosed documents and filed their Judge’s brief of documents. The applicant-plaintiff has also inspected the documents of defendant prior to filing of the application. It is also not in dispute that the signature is a relevant concern in the present probate proceedings. At this stage, the question arises whether the applicant-plaintiff can seek leave to disclose documents at a subsequent stage. 8. To find an answer to the aforesaid query, it would be profitable to refer to Order VII Rule 14 of the Code which reads hereunder. “14. 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 document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (2) Where any such document is 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.” 9. Further in Sugandhi (Dead) By Legal Representatives (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3).” 10. It is categorically stated in the application that the additional documents are germane and relevant for the purpose of adjudication for the present proceedings. Bearing in mind the aforesaid aspect and also taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Code under Order VII Rule 14 as well as the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court, since undisputedly the handwriting of the testator is an issue in the present proceedings, this Court is of the opinion that leave has to be granted for production and disclosure of additional documents as stated in paragraph no.20 of the application. It is made clear that so far as documents relating to point nos. It is made clear that so far as documents relating to point nos. (ii) & (iii) of paragraph no.20 are concerned, it should be limited to certified copy of petition dated 20th September, 2018 along with the Vakalatnama in Title Appeal No. 30 of 2016 before 11th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta and written statement filed on behalf of defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in Ejectment Suit No. 404 of 2021 along with Vakalatnama and applications under Sections 17(1), 17(2), 17(2A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and under Section 151 of the Code filed before the 6th Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta. 11. Accordingly, leave is granted to file additional documents as indicated hereinabove. 12.Let there be an order in terms of prayers (b) and (c) of the Master’s Summons. 13. Learned Advocate for the defendant is granted liberty to cause inspection of the additional documents. Inspection shall be completed within one week of reopening after puja vacation. 14. Learned Advocate on record for the plaintiff shall file additional Judge’s brief of documents. 15. The application being GA No. 8 of 2024 stands disposed of.