The present petitioner9s application 3I.A.No.5 under

Order VII, Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

<the CPC=) filed by him as a plaintiff-cum-applicant in

O.S.No.8147/2014, in the Court of the learned XIV

Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore (CCH No.28)

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as <the Trial Court=), in

a suit for recovery of money against the present respondent

as a defendant, came to be rejected by the Trial Court on

16-03-2018.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff in the original

suit has filed this writ petition.

3

2. The undisputed fact is that, before the defendant

filed his Written Statement, the plaintiff in the Trial Court

had already led his evidence on 04-02-2016 and had

already got marked the documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-10.

3. According to the learned counsels from both side,

the Written Statement came to be filed in the Trial Court

only on 25-02-2016. Subsequently the defendant9s

application seeking amendment of his Written Statement

also came to be allowed by the Trial Court on 19-04-2017.

It is thereafter, the present petitioner, as a plaintiff in the

Trial Court filed I.A.No.5 under Order VII, Rule 14 (3) read

with Section 151 of the CPC, on 03-01-2018, which

application is at Annexure H to the writ petition.

4. The contention of the applicant in the Trial Court in

his I.A.No.5 was that, since in the amendment to Written

Statement, the defendant had raised certain issues alleging

that the plaintiff did not possess a valid licence for money

lending and such other things, the plaintiff was constrained

4

to file I.A.No.5 under consideration, seeking permission to

produce additional documents. The defendant objected to

the said application stating that there is no corresponding

pleading in the plaint. Upholding the said contention, the

Trial Court rejected the application filed by the plaintiff.

5. A perusal of the interlocutory application I.A.No.5

filed under Order VII, Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of

the CPC would go to show that, whenever the parties to the

litigation fail to produce the document along with their

pleading, the Court, at a later stage, may, in suitable cases,

permit them to produce the document. Thus, there is no

prohibition from producing the document at a later stage,

during the pendency of the suit.

6. In the instant case, admittedly, PW-1 has not yet

been cross-examined. The only reason as well the

contention of the defendant that there is no corresponding

pleading in the plaint of the plaintiff about the documents

which he is intending to produce now, cannot be a reason

5

for denying the production of the documents. It is because,

if no such corresponding pleading is there, then the

defendant would be always at liberty to contradict with

those suggestions to the plaintiff9s witnesses in their cross-

examination and also bring to the notice of the Court, at the

time of appreciation of the evidence both oral and

documentary, about the presence of the evidentiary value

of the documents and oral evidence, in the absence of the

pleading. As such, merely protruding the reason that there

is no corresponding pleading, as such, the plaintiff cannot

produce a document without the leave of the Court under

Order VII, Rule 14 (3) of the CPC, is not a convincing

reason. Therefore, the impugned order does not sustain in

the eye of law and deserves to be set aside.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.

The impugned order dated 16-03-2018, passed by the

learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore

(CCH No.28) in O.S.No.8147/2014 on I.A.No.5, filed under

6

Order VII, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,

is quashed.

The said I.A.No.5 filed under Order VII, Rule 14 (3) of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is allowed and the

applicant/plaintiff (petitioner herein) is permitted to produce

the additional documents shown by him in the list of

additional