JUDGMENT : J.C. DOSHI Order passed below Exh.523 in RCS No.199 of 2001 dated 30/12/2021 by the trial court is sought to be challenged in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioners – defendants no.9 and 10 sought to produce the documents vide list produced at Exh.524 wherein the trial court mainly relied upon the reasons that defendant no.9 and 10 are intended to produce the document at belated stage; without any explanation and seven witnesses from the plaintiff side and two witnesses from the defendant side are examined and hence reason to allow the production of document at belated stage and as such passed the impugned. However, while passing such order, the trial court allowed document at Sr. No.1, 2, 7, 10, 44 and 54 to 56 but the application for production of other documents are rejected. 2. The short facts of the case are that Regular Civil Suit No.199 of 2001 is filed seeking declaration, permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs qua the suit land. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to be impleaded as party defendants no.9 and 10 as per order passed by trial court. It is the case of the petitioners that application seeking production of certain documents came to be filed at Exh.523 at the time of evidence of the plaintiff which came to be partly allowed and hence the present petition is filed. 2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.P C Kavina appearing for the petitioner submits that defendant nos.9 and 10 have been joined as necessary party in the year 2018. Since 2019 on-wards, the COVID was operating and proceedings of the suit were standstill. No sooner the COVID goes, the petitioner filed application at Exh.523 seeks leave of this court to produce documents at later stage and filed the list of documents at Exh.524. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kavina would further submit that they were go by particulars stated in this list of documents wherein upto Sr. No.56 are certified copy of the proceedings undertaken of revenue side; some transaction in paper cuttings except that there is no other document which the petitioner is intending to produce. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kavina would further submit that they were go by particulars stated in this list of documents wherein upto Sr. No.56 are certified copy of the proceedings undertaken of revenue side; some transaction in paper cuttings except that there is no other document which the petitioner is intending to produce. 2.1 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.P C Kavina would further submit that as far as the document in a list of Exh.524 is concerned, the contesting party are aware of the same and production was not taken by them surprise and in this circumstances the court ordinarily should grant leave in favour of the petitioner. 2.2 Upon above submissions, learned Senior Counsel Mr.P C Kavina appearing for the petitioner would submit to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel Ms.Megha Jani appearing for the contesting respondent while supporting the impugned order would submit that as many as seven witnesses on plaintiff side are examined and two witnesses from the defendant side are examined. The petitioner without offering any plausible explanation filed the documents at the belated stage which may cause prejudice to the right of the plaintiff and therefore trial court has rightly rejected the application seeking production of document and as such order is not suffering from palpable irregularities or jurisdictional error and therefore she would submit to dismiss the present petition. 4. The issue in question has been recently addressed by this court in the case of Tata Chemicals Limited Versus Gujarat State Fertilizer And Chemicals Ltd. [2024-GUJHC-0-39626 wherein after referring KK Veluswamy Vs. N. Palanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275 and Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. And Anr Vs. P.Rajkumar Rep.By His Power Agent Imam Oli reported in [ 2020(10) SCC 706 ] , this Court has held in paragraph 8 and 9 as under: “8. Regard being held to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, it is apt to note that in un- amended CPC, the provision pertaining to the production of documents by a party on their own volition were contained in Order 14 Rule 7, Rule 17 Order 7, Rule 1A Order 8, Rule 1 Order 13, proviso to sub rule 1 of Rule 4 Order 14 and Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. After the amendment, Act of 1999 and 2002 in the CPC. After the amendment, Act of 1999 and 2002 in the CPC. The relevant provisions for production of the documents are Order 7 Rule 14, Order 8 Rule 1A, Order 13 Rule 1, Order 18 Rule 4 and order 41 Rule 27 and they remain in force. In the present case, we are concerned with Order 8 Rule 1A of the CPC, as the defendants have sought to produce documents relying upon said provision, which reads as under:- “008 ORDER VIII-WRITTEN STATEMENT, SET-OFF AND COUNTER-CLAIM RULE 1A : Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. 3 [(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced 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 documents- (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.] 9. As per sub rule 1 of Rule 1A of Order 8, the defendant bases his defence upon a document has to enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him. Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, as far as possible, he shall state in whose possession or power it is. Sub rule 3 states that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence. Sub rule 3 states that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence. Thus, if the document is found to be relevant to the decision in the case or the defendant shows bona fide for not producing the document at the relevant stage, with the leave of the Court, it can be produced at subsequent stage or the at the time of hearing of the suit. At earlier point of time in CPC, there had been specific provision in Order 18 Rule 17A, which provides for production of evidence not previously known or which could not have been produced despite due diligence and was permitting the Court to take such evidence at a later stage, but that provision is deleted w.e.f. 1.7.2022.” 5. Apt to note that trial court though attributed the reason that the production of the document at belated stage and seven witnesses of the plaintiff and two witnesses from the defendant are examined; partly allowed the application for production of document at sr.no.1, 2, 7, 10, 44 and 54 to 56. In this circumstances, this court believes that since the other document which the petitioner intends to produce before the trial court are the certified copies of the revenue proceedings, notice transaction and the cutting taken up from the newspaper, would take the plaintiff to surprise. As all these documents are certified copies of the revenue proceedings or notice transaction between the parties, it is presumed existence of these documents are well within knowledge of the contesting party. In the opinion of this court, the trial court committed serious error in declining the application at Exh.523. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds. Impugned order is quashed and set aside. Relief claimed in application at Exh.523 is allowed and consequently the production of document vide list at Exh.524 is permitted. Both the parties are at liberty to raise the clarificatory evidence in regards to the production of these documents. Accordingly, the captioned CAs are disposed of.