// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4686/2007 Mannu Mal S/o late Shri Bhairu Mal Versus Tillu Mal S/o late Shri Bhairu Mal and Others Date of Order ::: 07.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri J.P. Goyal, Counsel for petitioner Shri Rishi Parasar, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Admit. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is heard on merits and being disposed of. Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for possession in respect of disputed plots wherein the defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(2) CPC seeking permission to produce on the record certain documents annexed with the application. The application was contested by the plaintiff by filing written-reply. The learned trial court, vide its impugned order dated 31st May, 2007, rejected the application, hence this writ petition has been preferred by the defendant. The learned counsel for the petitioner // 2 // referred Para 3 of the plaint and written- statement, and contended that the documents sought to be produced on the record were material and relevant and the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that the documents are not relevant, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside, and the petitioner's application may be allowed. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the documents sought to be produced on the record were neither referred in the written-statement nor they are relevant, therefore, the learned trial court rightly rejected the application by order dated 31st May, 2007, and the said order does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 31st May, 2007, and also the application and the reply filed by both the parties, which has been annexed along-with the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred the plaint as well as the written-statement and, after considering the same, I find it just and proper that the documents annexed with the application may be taken on the record in the interest of justice at the costs of Rs.1000/- // 3 // with liberty to the plaintiff-respondents to file any other documents in rebuttal and to raise objection at the time of final hearing of the suit that they are not material and relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31st may, 2007 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The application dated 19th April, 2007 filed by the defendant is allowed. The documents annexed with the application are ordered to be taken on the record. The defendant will pay costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the plaintiffs within a period of one month, failing which the documents will not be taken on the record. The plaintiffs will be at liberty to file any other documents in counter thereof and further to raise objections at the time of final hearing that the documents are not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the above, there is no need to pass any order on the application of the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, hence the same stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//