ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by learned District Judge, Sriganganagar in Civil Case No.73/2011 (CIS No.46/2014), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(4) read with Section 151 CPC was rejected. 2. Brief and relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed a petition bearing No.73/2011 before the Court of District Judge, Sriganganagar under Section 278 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 for issuing Certificate of administration regarding 47 bighas & 10 biswas land in Chak 37 PBN Tehsil Suratgarh and 119 bighas & 11 biswas land in Mauja Dhadhiyawali, Tehsil Suratgarh being only living disciple of deceased Shri Kalyan Bharti Ji. During pendency of the suit proceedings, the petitioner has moved an application under Order VII Rule 14(4) read with Section 151 CPC on 17.03.2025 for taking document namely Certificate dated 03.03.2025 and Certificate dated 25.01.2025 on record. The said application has been rejected vide order dated 19.03.2025. Aggrieved against the order impugned, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has utterly failed to appreciate that the documents sought to be brought on record are relevant and necessary for proper adjudication of the matter and merely on hypertechnical grounds, the said application for bringing certain documents on record has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was not required to bring the said documents on record at the time of presentation of the suit but when respondent No.4 – Jagdamba Bharti was arrayed as party respondent to the suit proceedings and she denied the existence and relation of the petitioner with said Kalyan Bharti which necessitated the petitioner to bring those documents on record. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the order impugned may kindly be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that at the stage of seeking leave to produce documents by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(4) CPC, the Court is not required to exercise the jurisdiction to examine the genuineness, evidential value and authenticity of the document, sought to be produced. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that at the stage of seeking leave to produce documents by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(4) CPC, the Court is not required to exercise the jurisdiction to examine the genuineness, evidential value and authenticity of the document, sought to be produced. He submits that the leave may be granted by the Court, subject to satisfaction about the non-production of document at the time of filing of the suit and considering the sufficiency of reasons of delay. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as far as delay is concerned, the suit is at the stage of cross-examination and the delay may be compensated by way of awarding appropriate cost to the defendant. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the documents may be allowed to be produced on record. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-defendant has vehemently opposed the writ petition and while supporting the impugned order, has argued that the trial Court has exercised its discretion within its jurisdiction and has rightly rejected the application under Order VII Rule 14(4) CPC. Learned counsel also contends that the application seeking documents to be taken on record has been moved after an inordinate delay of about 14 years. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court has declined to take the documents on record in its judicious exercise of discretion which does not warrant interference by the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, hence, the present writ petition may be dismissed. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record. 9. As far as the application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, a bare reading of sub-rule (3) shows that the Court is required to examine the reason or cause of not filing the document along with the plaint. At the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC, the Court is not required to see whether the document is forged, concocted or unauthorised. The evidentiary value or reliability of the document is required to be seen at the time of marking exhibit and/or at the time of leading evidence. At the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC, the Court is not required to see whether the document is forged, concocted or unauthorised. The evidentiary value or reliability of the document is required to be seen at the time of marking exhibit and/or at the time of leading evidence. By way of the order impugned, the Court below rejected the application filed by the plaintiff, for the reasons which are neither relevant nor germane, for deciding the same. 10. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the case of Anil Kumar Purohit vs. Union on India (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12288/2022) decided on 19.09.2024 observed as under: “15. This Court is of the view that there are multiple factors, which are required to be considered by the Court at the time of exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, to grant or refuse the leave to produce documents by either of the parties at later stage of civil proceedings, if the stage to produce documents has passed. Few of the factors may be categorized hereunder: (i) Stage of proceedings; (ii) Reason for not producing documents at earlier stage; (iii) Nature and relevancy of documents; (iv) Conduct of party and delay; (v) Prejudice likely to be caused to adversary parties; (vi) Genuineness of the documents in first decipher. These factors have been referred just for illustration and not as an exhaustive list, since there can be other factors also depending on facts of any particular case. It is true that there is no straight jacket formula, but satisfaction of the Court is must. As far as factors like admissibility, reliability and evidential value of document or the objection that document is forged, concocted or unauthenticated are concerned, same can ordinarily be considered and decided at the appropriate stage of civil proceedings and not at the stage of exercising the jurisdiction by the Court, to grant or refuse the leave. At this stage, no final finding should ordinarily be passed by the Court. At this stage, no final finding should ordinarily be passed by the Court. Although, it is equally true that if the document, at the first decipher, appears to be a fake document or does not inspire confidence of the Court, leave may be refused by the Court, disallowing to take such document on record, but such discretion must be exercised with all care and circumspection, without entering into the issues, which are required to be gone into during course of trial, including to decide the probative and evidential value of document or admissibility/ reliability of the document in evidence etc. The thin line in this respect is to be well understood. 17…...This Court finds that taking into consideration the other factors and attaining circumstances, the pragmatic and lenient view ought to have been taken by the trial Court, exercising its jurisdiction in a judicious manner to impart justice and for delay, plaintiff could have been compensated by awarding costs. 18. Thus, this Court is of considered opinion that the trial Court has failed to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in true perspective and in judicious manner as much as declining to grant leave to defendant to produce documents in question, would cause greater hardship to the defendant and may result into injustice, whereas plaintiff may be compensated by awarding costs for delay and would face no prejudice, since he will get full opportunity to cross-examine the defendants on these documents. The suit is undeniably at the stage of cross- examination. For such reasons, the impugned order warrants interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 11. In another case of Vedprakash Arora vs. Omprakash Arora (S.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17674/2017) decided on 25.01.2023 , the Jaipur Bench of this Court observed as under: “7. ….. It is trite law that the genuineness or admissibility of the document sought to be placed on record along with the application under Order 7 Rule 14 cannot be examined by the learned trial court at the time of consideration of the application.” 12. From a bare perusal of the order sheet dated 19.03.2025 of the trial court, it transpires that the cross-examination has yet not commenced. In such a situation, this Court finds no reason for debarring the petitioner-plaintiff from filing the additional documents in support of his claim. 13. From a bare perusal of the order sheet dated 19.03.2025 of the trial court, it transpires that the cross-examination has yet not commenced. In such a situation, this Court finds no reason for debarring the petitioner-plaintiff from filing the additional documents in support of his claim. 13. As far as assigning no sound reason for non-production of the documents at the time of presentation of the petition is concerned, this Court finds that th e documents namely Certificate dated 03.03.2025 and the Certificate dated 25.01.2025 were not in existence at the time of filing of the petition. 14. In view of the discussion made herein above, the present writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order impugned dated 19.03.2025 rejecting the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 14 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure is therefore, quashed and set aside. Said application dated 17.03.2025 is allowed, the document namely Certificate dated 03.03.2025 and the Certificate dated 25.01.2025 are ordered to be taken on record. 15. Needless to observe that the respondents-defendants shall always have liberty to raise all just objections in relation to the authenticity, genuineness, and admissibility of the documents and have also the liberty to produce counter documents to that extent as and when occasion arises which would be considered and decided by the trial Court in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any of the findings/ observations of this Court recorded hereinabove. 16. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.