Dinesh Mehta, J.

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"), whereby petitioner's application dated 24.01.2017, under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) has been rejected with the following observations:-

^^lquk x;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA bl izkFkZuk i= ds tfj;s oknh tc i=koyh lk{; oknh esa eqdjZjh rks ,d nLrkost tks ikfjokfnd fookn ds laca/k esa bdjkjukek gksf'k;kj dh lEifr ds laca/k esa fnukad 10-10-2010 dks iapk;r esa QSlyk gqvk Fkk bl QSlyukek tks fd 50 :i;s ds LVkEi ij fy[kk x;k gS] dks izLrqr djuk pkgk gSA izFker% ;g nLrkost tc okn is'k fd;k vFkok la'kksf/kr okn is'k fd;k ml le; u rks bldh QksVksizfr is'k dh xbZ vkSj u gh bl nLrkost ds laca/k esa okn esa dksbZ ftdz gSA bl nLrkost dks dwVjfpr gksus dh laHkkouk izfroknh us trkbZ gSA bl bdjkjukek esa jktLFkku esa xkao 13 vkjch ds eq0ua0 27 dh lk<+s+ X;kjg ch?kk Hkwfe tks fd fceyk nsoh ds uke jftLVjh djokus ds fy, lacaf/kr gS] dk mYys[k crkus ds fy;s ;g nLrkost is'k fd;k gSA bl nLrkost ds gkf'k;s ij fd;s x;s gLrk{kj fceyk nsoh o d'ehj flag ds gks] bl ckjs esa Hkh lansg O;Dr fd;k x;k gS pwafd ;g nLrkost bl fookn esa lqlaxr ugha gS] ek= iSjk la0 2 esa ml Hkwfe dk mYys[k dj tehu dh jftLV~h djokus dh lgefr fy[kuk vius vki esa lansg dkfjr djrk gS vkSj eq[; vkifr ;g gS fd mDr nLrkost brus o"kZ rd D;ksa is'k ugha fd;k x;k] bldk dksbZ dkj.k Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gSA ?kj esa j[k dj Hkwy tkuk] ;g dkj.k okftc dkj.k ugha gSA vr% ;g izkFkZuk i= bl LVst ij Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS vkSj nLrkost dks fjdkMZ+ ij fy;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA

vr% vkns'k 7 fu;e 14 /kkjk lhihlh dk izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k lquk;k x;kA

i=koyh okLrs lk{; oknh gsrq fnuakd 28-08-2017 dks is'k gksA^^

2. The facts involved in the present case are that the petitioner-plaintiff had instituted a suit for specific performance of an Agreement dated 08.04.1993. The suit which was filed in the year 2010, when reached at the stage of evidence, the petitioner-plaintiff moved the above referred application dated 24.01.2017 and sought leave to place on record an Agreement/Decision dated 11.10.2010 taken by the Panchayat.

3. The reasons mentioned for grant of said application were that the said document has been traced out a few days ago (10 days ago) and the same was necessary for the adjudication of the suit in question. The defendant opposed the said application and objected to the request of taking the said document on record by filing a reply.

4. The learned Trial Court rejected the said application on various counts, including the delay and advanced stage of the suit and further because neither there was any reference of the said document in the plaint nor in the amended plaint. Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenging the order dated 18.08.2017, contended that the Court below has erred in rejecting petitioner's application, doubting the genuineness of the document in question and observing that the signature of Smt. Bimla Devi and Kashmir Singh inscribed on the said document appears to be forged. Mr. Purohit contended that signatures and genuineness of the document cannot be examined or questioned, while deciding the application under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code. In support of his argument, Mr. Purohit relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered in the matter of Abdul Mueed & Ors. v. Hammad Ahmed & Ors., reported in 2016 (4) Civil Court Cases 733 (Delhi), particularly para-19 thereof, which is being reproduced hereunder:-

"19. As already noted above, in the application filed under Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC on oath, the petitioner has made averments that the documents sought to be filed came to the knowledge of the petitioner only on 20.07.2010. Needless to add, the respondents have vehemently denied this contention that the petitioners