Belam M. Trivedi, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging the order dated 6.9.11 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) First Class, Nainva, District Bundi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 25/06, whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner for production of the additional documents under Order 7 Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code.

2. In the instant case it appears that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction which is at the fague end, inasmuch as both the parties have led their respective evidence and the matter is kept for final arguments by the trial court. After the evidence of the respondents-defendants was over, the petitioner-plaintiff sought to produce certain documents under Order 7 Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the said documents were relevant to the issue involved in the suit and the same were misplaced by the petitioners and, therefore could not be produced earlier. The said application was opposed by the respondents-defendants. The trial court vide the impugned order dated 6.9.11 rejected the said application.

3. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. A.K. Pareek for the petitioner that the documents sought to be produced are relevant for the purpose of replying the counter-claim made by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the same having been misplaced by the petitioner, could not be produced earlier. Mr. Pareek submitted that the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff in rebuttal is also over during the pendency of the present petition and, therefore the petitioner would not lead any further evidence except the evidence for getting the documents exhibited.

4. However, the learned counsel Mr. Ravi Bhojak for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has vehemently opposed the present petition by submitting that the petitioner could not be allowed to produce the documents at such a belated stage which would otherwise cause prejudice to his defence taken in the written statement. He also submitted that the suit having been fixed for final arguments, after the completion of rebuttal evidence led by the plaintiff, there shall be fresh ground of evidence if such production is allowed.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that the documents have been sought to be produced by the petitioner-plaintiff at a very belated stage under Order 7 Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code. It is not disputed that the said documents were sought to be produced after the completion of evidence by both the parties. There was also no satisfactory reason shown by the petitioner-plaintiff for not producing the same at the earlier stage i.e. Before commencement of the evidence and after the issues were framed by the court. Under the circumstances this court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. However, considering the nature of documents and considering the statement made by the learned counsel Mr. A.K. Pareek for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner shall not lead any further evidence except the evidence for getting the documents exhibited, the petitioner is granted one opportunity to produce the documents in the interest of justice, of course subject to the heavy cost. It is needless to say that the respondents-defendants shall be at liberty to cross-examine the petitioner-plaintiff on the said documents, if exhibited for being read in evidence by the trial court. At this juncture, it would not be out of place to mention that such a practice of production of documents at such a belated stage is strongly deprecated and such practice deserves to be stopped, otherwise there would not be any end of any litigation. Merely because some discretion is granted to the court for production of documents at the later stage, should no