D/L- 23 25/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 3361 of 2026 Ms. Darshan Mekani Vs. Patha Bhavan, an educational institution, rept. by its President/Secretary Mr. Sonal Shah Mr. Kushagra Shah Ms. Rittwika Banerjee ….for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated August 14, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 10th Court at Alipore in title Suit No.70 of 2017. By the order impugned the application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in order to prove the allegations made in the plaint the documents which the petitioner sought to produce under Order VII Rule 14 is necessary. She submits that unless the petitioner is allowed to produce the said documents, petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. She further submits that the learned trial judge rejected the application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code on technical grounds. She placed reliance upon an order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pradeep Bailey vs. Gilma Daniel (CM(M) 1506/2023 & CM Appl. 47944/2023) in support of her contention that procedures are handmaid of justice and merely because of the fact that such documents were not filed along with the 2 plaint, the prayer of the petitioner to produce the same at a subsequent stage could not have been rejected. After going through the application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court finds that the petitioner sought to bring on record certain photographs, which, according to the petitioner, would only substantiate the plaint case and could be addressed at the evidence stage. The petitioner prayed for granting leave to the petitioner to include the said photographs as “relied upon documents” of the petitioner of the instance lis. Order VII Rule 14 (1) obliges the plaintiff to deliver the documents and file copies of the documents which the plaintiff seeks to rely upon and is in his possession or power in support of his claim to be filed with the plaint. Order VII Rule 14(3) states that if such document is not filed along with the plaint the same shall not be allowed to be produced or entered subsequently or received in evidence without the leave of the court. The learned advocate for the petitioner would vehemently contend that though at the stage of evidence the petitioner sought to tender the photographs along with the certificate in accordance with law but the same was not allowed to be tendered by the witness. After going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the learned trial judge decided the application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure only. 3 On a query of the Court the learned advocate for the petitioner, in her usual fairness, submits that the documents (photographs) which are annexed to the application were all taken subsequent to the institution of the suit. Upon a reading of the provision of Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is of the considered view that the documents which the plaintiff is required to file along with the plaint are documents which are referred to in the plaint and the plaintiff is in possession thereof. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner the photographs could not have been in possession of the petitioner at the time of filing of the plaint. This Court accordingly holds that the conditions laid down in Order VII Rule 14 has not been satisfied in the case on hand. Thus, the documents which were sought to be produced by way of filing an application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rightly not allowed by the learned trial judge at that stage. This Court, however, finds that the learned trial judge in the impugned order has clarified that any photograph relevant to the suit may be tendered by either side by following due procedure of law. The learned trial judge also recorded that if the petitioner wants to adduce the digital photographs certification is mandatory as per law of evidence. 4 Since the impugned order was passed on the application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and for the reasons as stated hereinbefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such order. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pradeep Bailey (supra) that procedures are handmaid of justice. However, the said decision cannot be come to the aid of the petitioner in the case on hand for the reasons as stated hereinbefore. Accordingly, CO 3361 of 2026 stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinbefore are only to support the ultimate conclusions and shall not prejudice the rights of any party to take steps in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)