1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1151/2006 State of Rajasthan vs Usman & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : -18.1.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.OP Boob, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.RK Thanvi, for the respondent. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC so far as documents referred in paras nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, was dismissed by the trial court by order dated 8.1.2003, hence, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. According to learned counsel for the petitioner,the documents referred in application, which are referred in application Annex.2 are relevant documents and its genuineness cannot be disputed and, therefore, the trial court should have allowed the petitioner's application for taking on record the above documents. It is also submitted that the documents came in existence in recent past only and, therefore also, they should have been taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit is at final stage and the petitioner- plaintiff failed to state any reason for not filing 2 the documents earlier nor stated how the documents are relevant for the purpose of just decision of any issue or can establish any right, title or interest of the plaintiff or its college in the property in dispute. The letters dated 1st July, 2002 and 22nd July, 2002 are the correspondence between the plaintiff and plaintiff's own officer. So far as Jamabani is concerned, that could have been produced by the plaintiff even before framing of the issues rather say, should have been filed alongwith the plaint itself and reply or correspondence dated 7th Dec., 2002 is absolutely irrelevant. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that copy of the Area Milan is a relevant and important document and this document has been produced to rebut the contention of the defendants taken in the written statement and there was no reason for denying production of this document. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the reasons given by the court below. It appears that the trial court rejected the application of the petitioner principally on the ground that the petitioner's contention is that the documents came in existence in recent past, but that fact is not correct. It will be worthwhile to mention here that looking to the nature of the suit and 3 allegations levelled in the plaint some of the correspondence between the State and its officer during the pendency of the suit cannot determine the rights of the parties. That may be at the best admission of party in its own favour. So far as copy of Area Milan is concerned, that could have been produced by the plaintiff and should have been produced long ago and there appears to be no explanation for not filing the document in time. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.Goyal/-