// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1817/2008 Gopiram S/o Shri Asha Ram Maheshwari Versus Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jhunjhunu and Another Date of Order ::: 11.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri P.L. Sharma, Counsel for petitioner Shri Intzar Ali, Counsel for respondent No.2 #### By the Court:- Admit. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction in the trial court. Defendant-respondent filed written-statement to the suit. The plaintiff's evidence has been closed. The case is fixed for defendant's evidence. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC seeking permission to produce certain documents annexed with the application, on the record. The application was contested by the defendant by filing written-reply thereto. The trial court, vide its order dated 2nd February, 2008 dismissed the application of the plaintiff. Being // 2 // aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the document, in question, was relevant, material and necessary for proper adjudication of the case, and the trial court committed an illegality in dismissing the application of the petitioner for taking that document on the record. He further contended that so far as delay of proceedings is concerned, the same could not be a ground for rejection of the application and at the most the trial court could have imposed costs while allowing the application of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no relevancy of the document sought to be produced by the petitioner on the record, for proper adjudication of the case. The said document does not relate to the property, in dispute. The present application has been filed only for the purpose of delaying the proceedings, therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same may be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined // 3 // the impugned order passed by the trial court in the light of their submissions and, after considering the same, I find that the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the plaintiff-petitioner looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The plaintiff has undertaken that he will not examine any witness in support of this document but he will only cross-examine the witnesses of the defendant with the present document. So far as the delay of proceedings is concerned, I am of the view that it can be compensated by imposing some costs while allowing the application of the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2nd February, 2008 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is allowed, and the document annexed with the application is ordered to be taken on the record at the costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). The amount of costs will be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on or before the next date i.e. 19.07.2008 fixed in the matter in the trial court, failing which the writ petition // 4 // will be deemed to have been dismissed and the said document will not be taken on the record and no further opportunity in this regard will be granted to the plaintiff. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the costs is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//