JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4. 2. Notice upon the opposite party No.3 is validly served. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 29.04.2024 passed in Original Title (Partition) Suit No.131 of 2021 by learned Civil Judge Senior Division – VI, Jamshedpur whereby the petition filed by the opposite party/plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit was for partition and the case has proceeded and at one stage of time the petitioner has filed a petition to bring on record certain documents which have been allowed and subsequently the petition filed by the plaintiffs/opposite party taking leave of the Court to bring on record the documents annexed with the said petition. He submits that the disclosure has been made in the written statement to the effect that the said documents are in the possession of the defendants in the plaint and now at belated stage the said petition has been filed that too when the matter has been fixed for argument. He submits in view of that there is violation of spirit of Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC. On this ground, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4 submits that only the documents have been brought on record that can be proved in the trial by way of leading evidence and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has also filed certain documents which has been allowed by the learned Court and thereafter the said petition has been filed by the plaintiff/defendants to bring on record certain documents which has been allowed by the learned Court. 7. It is well settled that the efforts are required to be made for conclusion of the litigation and to avoid the multiplicity of the Court proceedings. It is always in the interest of justice that the suit is decided in a competency manner so as to bring finality of the issue decided. 7. It is well settled that the efforts are required to be made for conclusion of the litigation and to avoid the multiplicity of the Court proceedings. It is always in the interest of justice that the suit is decided in a competency manner so as to bring finality of the issue decided. The relevance of any document can be examined by the trial court on the basis of the evidence to be led but to deprive the party to choose not to file the documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice. 8. It is well settled that the rules of procedure are hand made of justice and therefore even if there is some delay, the trial court is required to allow the documents to be taken on record on imposing certain costs and to decline the production of the documents itself will amount to denial of justice. 9. In view of the above, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the order, as such no case of interference is made out. This petition is dismissed. 10. The documents allowed by the learned Court will be proved in accordance with law and that can be decided on the basis of leading evidence in the trial. This order will not prejudice the case of either of the parties.