IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.773/2008. Narain Vs. The Civil Judge (Jr.Division) and Judicial Magistrate Kotputli, District Jaipur and ors. Date of Order:- 31/1/2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Manu Bhargava for the petitioner. **** The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14/12/2007 whereby the application moved by the non-petitioner Annexure-1 was allowed. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that perusal of the application shows that the defendant has moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for taking certain documents on record whereas those provisions are available only to the plaintiff. The other argument is in regard to the order passed on the application moved under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the other application moved under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC was delayed as list of witnesses were required to be given within 15 days of framing of the issues. Perusal of the order impugned shows that even the court taking note of the fact that there was some delay in moving application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC, cost was imposed. Under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC, period given is considered to be directory and 2 SBCWP NO.773/2008. mandatory in nature thus, in appropriate cases, court can extend the period. Therefore, I do not find any error in regard to the order passed on the application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC. So far as the application moved by the non- petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is concerned, I am not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner because defendants can submit document along with application and assuming that if a wrong provision has been quoted in the application then it cannot defeat the purpose because court is required to see substance of the application hence, even the order is passed on the application moved under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC I am not inclined to interfere as otherwise provision in that regard exist under Order 8 Rule 1A of CPC thus, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained on both the issues. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil