1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8240/2008 {Chittarmal Versus Additional District Judge & Others} Date of Order :: 25th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Ms. Ashish Joshi for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent in the trial court in the year 1997, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, which was ultimately dismissed on 15th January, 2002. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred and during the pendency of that appeal, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to place on record a copy of rent note of the year 1968. The appellate court rejected the said application vide order dated 29th July, 2008, which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the plaintiff- petitioner. 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disputed shop was rented out by father of the petitioner to defendant by executing a rent note, therefore, the same should be taken on record as it is relevant and material for proper adjudication of the case. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the appellate court for rejecting the application. During the pendency of the suit, the statement of plaintiff PW-1 Chhitarmal was recorded and he specifically admitted in his cross-examination on 31.3.1999 that no rent note was executed in respect of disputed shop, meaning thereby he denied the execution of the rent note. If this was the document of 1968 and it was in possession of plaintiff-petitioner, then there is no reason why it was not filed alongwith the suit itself or during the pendency of the suit, which remained pending from 1997 to 2002. It was even not filed during the pendency of the appeal from 2002 to 2008. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the reasons assigned by the appellate court for rejecting the application appears to be perfectly justified 3 and no interference in the same is called for in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK