1 4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1043/2008. Hari Prakash Vs. Mehar Chand & Anr. Date of Order :: 13th February 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Devendra Singh Dev, for the petitioner. ..... BY THE COURT: By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the defendant-petitioner seeks to question the order dated 07.01.2008 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srivijaynagar in Civil Suit No. 370/1997 rejecting an application under Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) whereby the petitioner wanted to produce on record the Sanad and Pass-book pertaining to the land in question. The petitioner stated that the said documents were relevant and would assist the court in arriving at just conclusion; and submitted that earlier for the Presiding Officer being not posted, he could not produce the documents. The learned trial court has found the cause as stated by the petitioner not worthy of credence and has also observed that there was no reason wherefor the documents could not have been produced earlier. It appears from the observations made in the impugned order that in this suit filed by the plaintiff- 2 respondent for specific performance, issues were framed on 28.07.1998 and the matter was pending for defendant's evidence when such an application was moved. Learned counsel Mr. Devendra Singh Dev appearing for the petitioner contended that the documents would be conducive to the just decision of the case, particularly because they show that the land in question was a gair-khatedari land and could not have been alienated. Learned counsel submitted that the documents being relevant ought to have been taken on record and in relation to delay, the plaintiff could have been compensated in terms of costs. It is true that in the interest of justice, a party is to be extended full opportunity of stating his case; and even if not filed earlier, a document could be taken on record if it has a bearing on the subject matter of litigation and a reasonable cause is stated towards delay. However, the significant aspects of the matter in the present case as discernible from the written statement (Annex.2) are that the defendant- petitioner has flatly denied existence of any sale agreement between the parties but has not taken any other plea in the written statement that could be co-related with the documents in question. Apart from blanket denial of the averments relating to the alleged agreement and alleged possession of the plaintiff and simple denial of other plaint averments, the 3 petitioner taken additional pleas only to the effect that the agreement was not on proper stamp and was not registered; that the agreement dated 14.06.1984 answers to the description of a receipt and was not bearing proper stamp; and that the suit was not within limitation. Except the aforesaid, there is no other pleading in the written statement; and the documents in question can neither be co-related with such pleadings nor could be said to be having a bearing on the questions arising for determination in the case on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. It has also been found that the reason for delay as suggested by the petitioner is not of any substance, as the petitioner would say that the documents were not filed because the Presiding Officer was not posted in the court concerned. Apart that the learned trial court has pointed out incorrectness of such a statement, it is obvious that the same cannot be said to be any reason at all for not filing the documents earlier. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; and the writ petition is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/