The main legal point established is the strict adherence to the rules regarding the production and admissibility of documents in civil suits, as outlined in the Civil Procedure Code.

The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 08.09.2010 by which additional documents have been taken on record, and order dated 21.11.2011 by which power of attorney dated 11.01.1990 executed by the General Secretary of the plaintiff-Marwari Relief Society has been taken on record.

2. Eviction Title Suit No. 05 of 1991 was instituted for a decree of eviction of the defendant from the suit property and a decree for Rs. 22,464/- as arrears of maintenance charges as well as mesne profit @ Rs. 3000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till ejection of the defendant. In the pending suit the plaintiff filed an application for reconstruction of the records, however, the application was rejected. Thereafter, an application was filed on 27.08.2010 for producing original application dated 04.08.1982, advocate’s notice dated 19.08.1987 and registration receipt dated 19.08.1997. This application has been allowed by the trial Judge by an order dated 08.09.2010 on the ground that these documents were not traced out by the plaintiff in spite of its best efforts. About 9 months thereafter another application was filed by the plaintiff for taking a power of attorney executed by its General Secretary on record. This application has also been allowed by an order dated 21.11.2011 observing that there is a reference of this power of attorney in the plaint.

3. By an order dated 15.06.2012 further proceeding in Eviction Title Suit No. 05 of 1991 was stayed by this Court.

4. Contending that orders dated 08.09.2010 and 21.11.2011 are illegal, Mr. Rupesh Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the fag end of the trial parties cannot be permitted to fill up lacuna in their case. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that introduction of new documents through applications dated 27.08.2010 and 14.06.2011 has taken him (the defendant) by surprise and it has caused serious prejudice to him.

5. Referring to verification part of the plaint, Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the said Ram Nandan Prasad is the constituted attorney of the plaintiff who by virtue of the power of attorney produced through application dated 14.06.2011 has filed the eviction suit and while so, there is sufficient foundation laid in the plaint for admitting the aforesaid power of attorney in evidence. It is further contended that the trial Judge in its order dated 08.09.2010 has granted sufficient opportunity to the defendant in as much as admissibility of the documents shall be decided at the time of final hearing in the suit.

6. Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C provides that the plaintiff shall produce document at the time of presentation of the plaint upon which his claim is founded (refer sub-rule1), and if the document is not in his possession he shall disclose in whose possession the document is (refer sub-rule 2). No doubt under sub-rule 3 to Rule 14 of Order VII C.P.C a document which ought to have been produced can be admitted in evidence, however, powers under sub-rule 3 must be exercised in the context of the pleadings of the parties and subject to conditions under sub-rule 1 and sub-rule 2 to Rule 14 of Order VII CPC. Except at the verification portion, there is no reference of the constituted attorney of the plaintiff and there is no averment in the plaint in respect of the documents sought to be produced through applications dated 27.08.2010 and 14.06.2011. Order XIII Rule 1 provides that before settlement of issues in the suit the parties shall produce original documents. Admittedly, these documents are not in the list of documents furnished by the plaintiff. Order XVI Rule 1 C.P.C provides that within 15 days or such time as fixed by the Court the parties shall produce list of witnesses whom they intend to examine or through whom they seek production of any document. Neither in the list of witnesses nor in the applications dated 27.08.2010 or 14.06.2011 the plaintiff has sought perm