[1] SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3096/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3096/2006 BAJRANG LAL Vs. UMA SHANKAR DATE: 14.12.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Alok Garg, for the petitioner. Mr. G.D. Parwal with Mr. Rahul Ghiya, for the respondent. **** Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Plaintiff/respondent Uma Shankar filed a suit for eviction on number of grounds in respect of rented premise in the trial Court. The case was fixed for final arguments. Learned counsel for plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC in the trial Court along with six documents on 11.08.2005 for taking the said documents on record. The application was contested by the defendant. 3. Learned trial Court after considering the submissions of the parties, vide its order dated 01.02.2006 allowed the application at the cost of Rs.600/-. Liberty [2] SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3096/2006 was also granted by the trial Court to the defendant to produce the documents in rebuttal. Being aggrieved with the said order, the defendant has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the documents which have been taken on record, were very much available with the plaintiff at the earlier stage, therefore, the trial Court committed an illegality in taking the said documents on record at this stage, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for respondent urged that the documents filed with the application were part of record of judicial proceedings and out of six documents, five documents are certified copies, including two judgments of judicial Courts, therefore, looking to the controversy involved in the present matter and nature of documents, the trial Court was justified in taking the said documents on record. 6. I have considered the submissions of [3] SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3096/2006 learned counsel for the parties in the light of reasons assigned by the trial Court in the impugned order for taking the said documents on record. 7. No doubt, the present suit was filed in the year 1984 and the learned counsel for plaintiff moved an application in the year 2004. Bare perusal of six documents will show that five documents are certified copies of plaint, written statement, compromise and judgments and one document is original rent note. The trial Court was of the view that these documents are necessary to be taken on record. The trial Court also granted liberty to the defendant to produce any other document in rebuttal. 8. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has already protected the interest of defendant by giving liberty to produce the documents in rebuttal. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial Court so as to interfere in the same while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstance of the present case. [4] SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3096/2006 9. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that since the matter is fixed for final arguments in the trial Court and he could not produce the documents in rebuttal as per liberty granted by the trial Court in its impugned order, interim stay order passed by this Court was in force, therefore, some reasonable time may be granted to produce the documents in rebuttal. 11. Prayer appears to be reasonable and the same is, accordingly, allowed. 12. Defendant/petitioner will be at liberty to produce the documents in rebuttal within a period of one month from today. Thereafter matter will be disposed off finally by the trial Court at the earliest. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. /KKC/ [5] SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3096/2006