Documents filed with replication without leave of court under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC are inadmissible.

The Petitioner (husband) filed a petition for matrimonial relief under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA No. 1777/2023).

During the proceedings, the Petitioner filed a Replication along with additional documents which were initially taken on record on 12.05.2026, following which issues were framed.

The Respondent (wife) subsequently moved an application seeking permission to file a sur-rejoinder and challenged the inclusion of the Petitioner’s additional documents.

On 11.07.2026, the Family Court, Rohini, dismissed the request for a sur-rejoinder but ordered that the documents filed with the Replication be "taken off the record" because they were filed without the court's leave.

The Petitioner assailed this order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Family Court could validly order documents to be taken off the record after they had already been accepted and issues had been framed.

2. Whether the Court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting a relief (removal of documents) that was allegedly not specifically sought in the prayers of the application.

3. Whether the statutory embargo under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC applies to documents filed along with a Replication.

Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which stipulates that any document which ought to have been produced with the plaint, but was not, shall not be received in evidence without the leave of the Court.

The legal principle established in Polyflor Limited v. A. Goenka & Ors. (2016:DHC:2990), reinforcing that there is a statutory embargo against placing additional documents on record without prior judicial permission.

The High Court reasoned that Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC creates a mandatory procedural requirement: a plaintiff must obtain explicit leave from the court to introduce documents not filed with the original plaint.

The Court found that the Petitioner admittedly failed to file an application for leave when submitting documents with the Replication.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the prior "taking on record" of the Replication or the framing of issues waived this requirement, holding that these procedural milestones do not dilute the statutory mandate of the CPC.

The Court clarified that a trial judge is not denuded of jurisdiction to enforce statutory procedures simply because a specific prayer for removal was absent in the opponent's application; the court has an independent duty to ensure documents are placed on record according to law.

The court affirmed that documents filed with a Replication without leave of the court under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC cannot remain part of the record or be used in evidence.

All pending applications were dismissed.