Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the respondents purportedly under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC has been accepted.

2. The suit was fixed for defendant's evidence and on behalf of the defendant, an application under Section 151 CPC read with Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC was filed seeking permission of the Court to produce original document for comparison.

3. The application was opposed by the plaintiff, inter alia, indicating that the application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC was not maintainable; the documents does not fall within parameters of provisions of Order 13, Rule 5 CPC, the original documents can only be produced before the settlement of issues and, therefore, the application was liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that a photo-copy of the document was already filed 2 with the written statement and the application has been filed for producing the original for the purpose of comparison and the same is not going to affect the interest of the plaintiff and consequently allowed the application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the purport of Order 13, Rule 1 & taking away Rule 2 Order 13 CPC was to deprive the court of the power to receive documents produced after filing of the plaint/written statement and after the settlement of issues, reiterated the objections as indicated in the reply and noticed herein-before and further submitted that the document is irrelevant and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in accepting the application filed by the respondent. Reliance was placed on Kirodi Lal v. Chittar Mal, AIR 2014 Raj. 18.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material availaible on record.

7. The issue raised in the petition is whether a document which ought to have been produced along with the written statement or, original of documents (copies of which are required to be produced along with plaint/written statement) which ought to have been produced on or before the settlement of issues could be produced after that stage and the court has the power to receive such documents in evidence?

8. It is relevant to note that Rule 1 Order 13 CPC as it stood prior to amendment stated that parties or pleaders shall produce on or before the settlement of issues all the 3 documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power on which they intend to rely and which has not already been filed in court and all documents which the court has ordered to be produced. Rule 2 Order 13 stated that no documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1 Order 13 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record reasons for so doing. The Amendment Act 46 of 1999 omitted Rules 1 and 2 of Order 13 and a new rule was inserted which did not give power to the court to receive a document produced after the settlement of issues.

9. In the Amendment Act 22 of 2002 Rule 14 Order 7 CPC and Rule 1A Order 8 CPC were amended. The effect of that amendment is that provisions which enabled production of documentary evidence with leave of the court under Rule 2 Order 13 CPC as it existed earlier and which was taken away by Amendment Act 46 of 1999 was virtually brought back by Sub rule (3) of Rule 14 Order 7 and Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1A Order 8 CPC.

10. Rule 14(3) of Order 7 and Rule 1A(3) of Order 8 CPC states that a document which ought to be produced in court by the Plaintiff or Defendant along with the plaint or written statement or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint or wri