CMPMO 400 of 2008. 9.3.2009 Present: Mr. Pawan Gautam, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Anup Rattan, counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court refusing permission to the petitioner herein for placing on record certified copy of ex parte injunction order dated 27.9.1994, certified copy of status quo order dated 5.4.1997 and certified copy of the report of Local Commissioner dated 7.1.1995. The learned trial Court dismissed the application basically on the ground that it was belated and delayed. This approach cannot be commended. True, a litigant cannot be allowed to stretch proceedings at his whim and pleasure, but at the same time Court orders cannot be declined to be taken on record only for the reason that delay has been caused. Without entering into controversy further, this petition is allowed. The certified copy of ex parte injunction order dated 27.9.1994, certified copy of status quo order dated 5.4.1997 and certified copy of the report of Local Commissioner dated 7.1.1995 are directed to be taken on record of the case. It is trite to observe that mere filing of these documents will not constitute proof of the allegations made against the -2- respondents herein. It will be open to the respondents to place on record such other or further material/ documents / pleadings in defence of their case. The petitioner is further directed to pay costs of Rs.4400/- to the respondents on the first date of appearance before the learned trial Court. It is clarified that in case costs are not paid on the first date, this petition will be deemed to have been dismissed and the order of the learned trial Court shall revive. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 2.4.2009. CMP 817 of 2008. This application is disposed of in view of the order passed in the main petition. March 9, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.