Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - A suit for recovery filed by plaintiff M/s Ganpati Trading Company, Commission Agents, Samana, through its sole proprietor Surinder Kumar, respondent herein, is pending adjudication against defendant Sewa Singh, petitioner herein. Suit of the respondent-plaintiff is based on account books viz. Rokar Bahi, Khata and Form-J, entries which were maintained in the daily course of business. Since the respondent is also an income tax assessee, his accounts are also subject to scrutiny by the Income Tax Department.

2. Concedingly, the petitioner-defendant is an agriculturist and had been selling his agricultural produce through the respondent-plaintiff. Some dispute cropped up between them and the suit for recovery of Rs.11,30,969.50 Ps. i.e. Rs.8,50,359.50 Ps. as principal and Rs.2,80,610/- as interest was preferred giving details of accounts maintained by the respondent-plaintiff in the regular course of business. When the evidence was being led, the respondent-plaintiff could not lay hands on certain documents and thus could not produce the said documents though details thereof had been fully explained in the plaint.

3. During the course of leading of evidence, an application was moved by the respondent-plaintiff for grant of leave to place on record copies of the cash book and the Khata entries alongwith J-forms and Punjabi translation thereof. The said application was strongly contested. Notwithstanding tough contest made by the petitioner-defendant, the application was allowed vide impugned order dated 5.5.2012 passed by the lower court.

4. Claim of the petitioner-defendant in this petition is that since the documents were the very foundation of the case of the respondent-plaintiff, in terms of Order VII Rule 14 CPC those documents were to be placed as annexures with the plaint and could not have been allowed to be produced later. Support has been sought from Nepal Das and another Versus Aditi Deori and others 2012(6) RCR (Civil) 156 (Gauhati) wherein Referring to Order VII Rule 14, Order VII Rule 18, Order XIII Rule 1 as also Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, it was held that when documents are not presented with the plaint, those could not be produced after framing of issues but it was further clarified that under exceptional and special reasons explained by the erring party showing inability of filing such documents at an early stage, the same could be filed later.

5. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has urged that the documents sought to be produced are beyond manipulation and photocopies thereof had already been filed with the plaint. It is also claimed that in the plaint, each and every document and entries thereof have been explained in detail leaving no scope for any uncertainty. Support has also been sought from Nachhattar Singh Versus M/s Darshan Kumar Rajiv Kumar Commission Agents 2012(3) PLR 377 (P&H); M/s Dabur (Nepal) Pvt. Limited Versus M/s Woodworth Trade Links Pvt. Limited 2010(4) AD (Delhi) 842 (Delhi) and Arjinder Singh Versus M/s Virk Brothers and another 2012(5) RCR (Civil) 208 (P&H). It is urged that merely because the document, photocopies whereof are already on record with the pleadings details whereof are also given with full explanation, cannot be denied to be relied upon by the erring party merely because the original of the documents are sought to be placed on record with some delay.

6. At this stage, it would be necessary to refer Order VII Rule 14, Order VIII Rule 1-A and Order XIII Rule 1 CPC, which are as under:

Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C.

“14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies – (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

(2) Where any such doc