1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Mahavir Prasad & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4889/2010) Date of Order :- April 19, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, for the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2009, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Sikar, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) & Order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC for taking certain documents on record, the petitioners have come before this Court. It is the case of the petitioners that they wanted to submit three documents, namely the death certificate of the defendant's father, Bhanwar Lal, the order-sheets of another civil case, Civil Case No.74/96 and the FIR, FIR No.326/2008, which the petitioners had filed against the respondents before the trial court. According to the learned counsel, under Order 7 Rule 14(3), those documents which could not be submitted along with the plaint can be submitted even afterwards, but with the permission of the Court. Since these documents are relevant for the just decision of the case, an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC was filed by the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the learned Magistrate has erred in rejecting the 2 application. Since the FIR proves the fact that the respondents are disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioners, it is a relevant piece of evidence. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 31.10.2009 clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) & Order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC. According to the learned Magistrate, when the plaint was filed, the petitioners had shown the defendant as son of late Bhanwar Lal. Therefore, he was well aware of the fact that the defendant's father had already expired. Hence, he had ample opportunity to submit the death certificate of the defendant's father. Moreover, along with the plaint, the petitioners had submitted the order-sheet dated 25.05.2004. Thus, they had equal opportunity to submit the previous order-sheets of the Civil Case No.74/1996. Moreover, the FIR was lodged on 29.07.2008. However, the application was moved a year later on 18.08.2009. There is no explanation for the delay of one year for bringing the said document on record. Moreover, the said document does not shed any light on the controversy involved in this case. Furthermore, the learned Magistrate is justified in his reasoning that since the evidence is at the rebuttal stage, and since no issues can be framed with regard to the existence of the FIR or about its consequences or 3 effect on the case, the said documents cannot be taken on record. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 31.10.2009. Since the petition is devoid of any merit, it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-