The main legal point established in the judgment is that the belated filing of applications to fill the lacunae in pleadings and evidence is not permissible under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

This petition is directed against the order dated 24.1.2014 rendered by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 3, Hamirpur in CMA No. 30/2014 in Civil Suit No. 102/2000.

2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioners-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred as the “plaintiffs” for convenience sake) filed a Civil Suit registered as Civil Suit No. 102/2000 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 3, Hamirpur. The suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are owners in possession of the suit land and the entries made in the revenue record showing the contesting defendants as nonoccupancy tenants alongwith plaintiffs are wrong and contrary to the position existing on the spot and such illegal entries made without the knowledge or notice to the plaintiffs are without jurisdiction, nullity and not binding on the plaintiffs. The case was earlier decided by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). However, the learned District Judge has remanded the matter.

3. Plaintiffs have moved an application under order 7 rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to tender in evidence certified copy of plaint dated 19.8.1969, copy of amended plaint dated 7.7.1976, copies of judgment and decree dated 18.11.1978 and copies of Khasra Girdawari 1965-66, 1977-78, 1967-68 and 1976-77. According to the plaintiffs, documents were not earlier available with them and they have obtained the same recently. According to them, delay in placing the documents on record was neither intentional nor deliberate.

4. The application was resisted by the contesting defendants. According to them, the application was misconceived and has been filed belatedly.

5. Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashistha has vehemently argued that the production of documents is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the matter.

6. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the application has been filed to delay the proceedings.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order and pleadings carefully.

8. The Civil Suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2000. The application has been filed belatedly after the recording of evidence. No convincing and cogent reasons have been assigned why the documents have not been placed on record earlier. The plaintiffs have already been granted ample opportunities to produce the evidence. In case the application is allowed at this belated stage, it is bound to prejudice the case of defendants. These documents were required to be placed on record during the trial. The application filed by the plaintiffs is devoid of merit and the same has rightly been rejected by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Hamirpur.

9. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Bagai Construction through its proprietor Lalit Bagai v. M/s Gupta building Material Store, AIR 2013 SC 1849 have held that after change of various provisions by way of amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reason time. Their Lordships have further held that in fact, applications for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered. Their Lordships were considering filing of two applications under order 7 rule 14 and under order 18 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Their Lordships have further held that the plaintiff had filed the application before the trial court in order to overcome the lacunae in the plaint, pleadings and evidence. Those evidence have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, still plaintiff has not placed those bills on record. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, final arguments were heard on num