1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Kailash Kanojia Vs. Jitendra Mohan Harit & Anr. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.8433/2005) S. B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Judgment: August 20, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.S.K. Singh, for the petitioner. Mr.Prahlad sharma, for respondent No.1. BY THE COURT: An application (22776/2010) under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India has been filed for vacationing of ex-parte stay order. However, the learned counsel for the respondent does not wish to press this application. Therefore, this application is, hereby, dismissed as not pressed. Although this case is listed in the category of 'Orders', but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to decide this case finally. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.4, Fast Track Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the 2 petitioner's application under Order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC, the petitioner has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. The learned trial court framed thirteen issues in the suit. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner. On 21.05.2005, the petitioner moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC for taking certain documents on record. However, vide order dated 15.09.2005, the learned trial court rejected the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. S.K. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that since these are documents which were relevant for resolving the controversy in issue, the learned Judge should have allowed the application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) CPC. On the other hand, Mr. Prahlad Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, frankly concedes and states that the respondent No.1 would not have any objection in case the application under Order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC were allowed and in case the petitioner were permitted to bring the documents on record. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Since the respondent No.1 does not have any objection if the application Order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC. were allowed, therefore, this Court quashes and sets asides the order dated 15.09.2005 and directs that the documents which were submitted by the petitioner along with his application under Order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC shall be taken on record forthwith. Hence, this petition is, hereby, allowed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki