ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.11.2024 (Annex.13) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaisalmer (‘Trial Court’) seeking following reliefs: “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that- (a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this petition may kindly be allowed with costs and the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure-13) passedby the learned Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jaisalmer may kindly be set aside and the applications dated 17.9.2024 and 1.10.2024 under Order 7 Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code for taking on record the documents so submitted with these applications by way of Form No.3 and the application dated 7.11.2024 under Order 7 Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code of the plaintiffs-petitioners to take on record the copies of documents annexed with the said application by way of Form No.3 was allowed only partially vide order dated 28.11.2024 may kindly be rejected and set aside. (b) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioners. (c) Cost of this writ petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioners.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed a suit on 19.07.2012 for partition, damages and permanent injunction in relation to the disputed property i.e. ‘Patwa Havelies’ the neighbourhood whereof were mention in paragraph 4 of the plaint. In the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs stated that since the plaintiffs No.1 to 7 were residing out of Jaisalmer in connection with their business, therefore, the petitioners No.1 to 7 executed a special power of attorney in favour of plaintiff No.8 authorizing him to file and contest the suit on their behalf. In the plaint, the petitioners/plaintiffs stated that the plaintiffs and defendants are the joint owner and in possession of the suit property, which may be partitioned by meets and bounds. 3. After service of the summons, the defendant No.16 filed his written statement while denying the averments made in the plaint, however, admitted the fact that they all are descendants of Late Sh. Guman Chand Bapna. On behalf of defendant Department of Archaeology and Musems, Bikaner Circle, Bikaner written statement was also filed while denying the averments of the plaint with a prayer to dismiss the suit. Other defendant viz. Surendra Kumar also filed his written statement raising almost similar submissions. 4. Guman Chand Bapna. On behalf of defendant Department of Archaeology and Musems, Bikaner Circle, Bikaner written statement was also filed while denying the averments of the plaint with a prayer to dismiss the suit. Other defendant viz. Surendra Kumar also filed his written statement raising almost similar submissions. 4. As per the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 30.10.2019, the learned Trial Court framed nine issues. 5. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC dated 17.09.2024 (Annex-7) with a prayer to take on record certain documents viz. Letters of District Collector dated 12.11.1975, Letter of Land Acquisition officer dated 23.08.1991, Letter dated 03.07.1980, District Collector Letter dated 21.04.1987, Minutes of Meeting of the proceedings drawn before the District Collector dated 24.01.1974, Government letter dated 15.04.1994 and 06.07.1976 along with Form No.3. The said application was replied by the defendants vide their reply dated 15.10.2024. The petitioners/plaintiffs also filed another application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC dated 01.10.2024 (Annex.9) seeking to place on record certain documents, which application was also replied to by the defendants vide their reply dated 15.10.2024. The petitioners/plaintiffs yet filed another application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC on 07.11.2024 (Annex.11) along with which certain documents with respect to proceedings initiated by one of the shareholder of the property were sought to be produced on record. The petitioners/ plaintiffs stated that these documents were obtained by them from the office of District Collector under the Right to Information Act, which were received by them on 06.11.2024. The said application was replied by the defendants with a prayer to reject the same. In order to get the documents on record reliance has been placed on 2013 (4) 1594 Gouda and another vs. Smt, Suraj Devi, Single Bench Civil Writ Petition No. 10276/2008 Ratan Kumari vs. ADJ (Fast-Track) No. 7, Jaipur City and another dated 23.07.2013, Single Bench Civil Writ Petition No. 14373/2011 Onkarlal vs. Abdul Rashid and Anr. dated 11.11.2011 to take documents prayed on record. 6. dated 11.11.2011 to take documents prayed on record. 6. The learned Trial Court thereafter heard arguments of both the parties and vide order impugned dated 28.11.2024 (Annex.13) proceeded to reject applications under Order VII Rule 14 CPC dated 17.09.2024 (Annex.7) and 01.10.2024 (Annex.9), however, partly allowed the application preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 14 CPC (Annex-11) and the certified copies of those documents were taken on record, whose photostat copies were filed along with the suit. 7. Aggrieved by the order impugned dated 28.11.2024 (Annex.13) passed by learned Trial Court, rejecting applications Annex.7 & 9), the petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred this writ petition. 8. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the learned Trial Court has not considered the relevancy of the documents, which were sought to be placed on recording by filing applications under Order VII Rule 14 CPC (Annex.7 & 9 respectively). Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs through power of attorney and at the time of filing the suit, certain documents could not be filed, which were discovered by them at a later point of time, thus, the documents sought to be produced were essential and germane for deciding the suit, however, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs further submits that the applications under Order VII Rule 14 CPC (Annex.7 & 9 respectively) have been dismissed in casual manner without considering the law point involved in the matter and, therefore, the applications could not have been rejected. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs further submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the legal aspect of the matter, and on technical reasons without looking into the crux of the matter and relevance of the documents sought to be produced, passed the order impugned; inasmuch as there is no justification available to reject the application. 10. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 11. Order VII Rule 14 has been reproduced hereunder: “ ORDER VII Plaint Documents relied on in plaint: 14. 10. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 11. Order VII Rule 14 has been reproduced hereunder: “ ORDER VII Plaint Documents relied on in plaint: 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. (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 plaintiffs witnesses, or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” 12. Keeping in view the above-mentioned sub-rules, under sub-rule (1), if the plaintiff brings a suit on the basis of any document or relies on a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, then he shall enter those documents in a list and present it in the Court at the time of presenting the plaint and at the same time shall deliver the document and its copy to be filed along with the plaint. That is, keeping in view the above-mentioned rule, the plaintiff shall present the documents on which he relies or his suit relies, along with the list, at the time of presenting the plaint. Under sub-rule (2) wherever such documents are if they are not in power and possession of plaintiff, the legislature’s intention appears as the plaintiff shall declare, wherever possible in whose power and possession the documents really are. Under sub-rule (2) wherever such documents are if they are not in power and possession of plaintiff, the legislature’s intention appears as the plaintiff shall declare, wherever possible in whose power and possession the documents really are. Under sub-rule (3), if such documents are not presented in the list at the time of presenting the plaint by the plaintiff, then in such a situation, without the permission of the Court and at the time of hearing of the suit, they shall not be taken into evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. 13. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly observed that, if the plaintiffs could not produce the documents mentioned in the plaint at that time and wanted to produce those mentioned documents later, then the Court could have considered the reasons for their delay in production and considered it to be relevant. It is also observed by the learned Trial Court that admittedly, the documents which the petitioners/plaintiffs seek to introduce into evidence include some photocopies which were already submitted with the original plaint, as uncertified copies, the remaining documents were not referenced or described in any way within the initial plaint, and the plaintiffs were attempting to introduce these new documents at the evidence stage of proceedings, which have no mention in the plaint. Furthermore, learned Trial Court has observed that under Order VII Rule 14 (3), it is not provided that the plaintiff can present the documents on which his suit depends, at any stage as per his wish, instead of presenting them with the plaint. 14. The Trial Court has rightly observed that in the applications filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 14 dated 17.09.2024 and 01.10.2024 (Annex-7 & 9), keeping in view that no pleading has been made by the plaintiffs in the plaint regarding the documents attached to the said applications and also that they have not made any pleadings regarding the plaint being based on the above documents, then it does not appears to be justified to take the documents on record as mentioned in the applications of the plaintiffs dated 17.09.2024 and 01.10.2024 (Annex-7 & 9). Therefore, the applications of the plaintiffs dated 17.09.2024 and01.10.2024 are rejected. 15. Therefore, the applications of the plaintiffs dated 17.09.2024 and01.10.2024 are rejected. 15. The certified copies of the documents mentioned in the application of the plaintiffs dated 07.11.2024 (Annex-11), whose photocopies have already been submitted by the plaintiffs along with their plaint, have been taken on record and the said application is partially allowed and out of the certified copies of the documents attached to the said application dated 07.11.2024, which the plaintiffs claim is obtained from the Department of Archaeology and Museum, Jaipur under the Right to Information, only those certified copies, whose photocopies have already been submitted by the plaintiffs in the plaint, are taken on record. 16. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 630/2007, Goda & Ors. v. Smt. Suraj Devi & Ors. decided on 23.07.2013, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in support of petitioners’ case, a Cordinate Bench of this Court held as under: “It is true that the documents, sought to be produced by the petitioners along with application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) C.P.C., were very much within their knowledge at the time of filing of the suit and there is mention about the said documents in the plaint itself, however, it is also true that the production of the said documents is not going to prejudice the respondents as the petitioners have already mentioned about the said documents in their plaint.” 17. A bare perusal of the above finding makes it abundantly clear that the Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the application filed under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC for production of certain documents on record as the petitioners therein had already mentioned those documents in their plaint, which is not the case in the instant writ petition. And therefore, this legal precedent cited by the PP does not support their application under Order VII Rule 14 for taking those documents on record who have no mention in their original plaint. 18. This Court also considered the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10276/2008 Ratan Kumari v. Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Ors., decided on 12-12-2011, a Co-Ordinate Bench has observed that if an application has been filed under Order VII Rule 14, the documents, if are not filed, for one or the other reason can be filed later on, but with the leave of the Court alone. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Ors., decided on 12-12-2011, a Co-Ordinate Bench has observed that if an application has been filed under Order VII Rule 14, the documents, if are not filed, for one or the other reason can be filed later on, but with the leave of the Court alone. The precedent advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs makes it clear that the production of documents sought can be taken on record only after the leave of the Court, and since granting of the leave to allow the production of certain documents to take on record even after not mentioning them in plaint varies on distinct facts and circumstances of each distinct case, therefore, keeping in mind the present facts and circumstances of the instant Writ Petition, the precedent cited does not help the petitioners/plaintiff coupled with the fact that the applications are filed after nearly 10 years of filing of the plaint. 19. This Court finds that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14373/2011 Onkar Lal v. Abdul Rashid & Anr. decided on 11.11.2011, has held that “when the photo-stat copies were already lying on record, the learned trial Court ought to have granted leave to produce the documents.” Applying the facts in the present case the learned Trial Court had already partially allowed application to take those documents on record which were mentioned in the initial plaint of 2012 herein. Therefore, the above precedent cited helps the counsel for the petitioners till the extent of taking only those documents on record whose photostat copies were already attached with the plaint. 20. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court was quite justified in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. in not allowing the documents to be taken on record due to the pertinent and crucial fact that the plaint nowhere mentions the documents which the plaintiff seek to be taken on record. Only those certified copies are allowed to be taken on record whose photocopies were already attached with the original plaint. 21. Therefore, in light of above facts and precedent cited we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. The writ petition as also stay petition are dismissed. No costs.