1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4487/2008 M/s. Rajendra Trading Company & Others Versus Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class (South), Kota & Another Date of Order :: 16th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. R.B. Mathur for the petitioner Mr. R.K. Agarwal for the respondent no. 2 BY THE COURT: The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has filed an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution for vacating the ex- parte stay order dated 7th May, 2008. However, at the request of learned counsel for the parties, the case was heard finally and is being disposed of. 2. Admit. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The plaintiff-respondent no.2 filed a suit for eviction in respect of disputed property on the ground of personal bonafide necessity, default and non-user of the premises. The defendants have filed their written statement, issues have been framed and 2 plaintiff's evidence has also been closed. The matter was fixed for defendants' evidence and during the statement of DW-1 Chet Ram on 23rd May, 2007, certain documents were produced by counsel for plaintiff for his cross- examination, but an objection was raised on behalf of defendants that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to produce any new document which is not on record during cross-examination of DW-1 Chet Ram. The matter was fixed for arguments on the aforesaid objection of the defendants. The trial court, after considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, overruled the objection of the defendants vide order dated 27th September, 2007 which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the defendants. 5. The learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners contended that trial court has committed an illegality in over- ruling the objection of defendants and order passed by the trial court is contrary to provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 and Order 8 Rule 1A(4) CPC. He contended that all documents are required to be produced before settlement of the issues and in case any party wants to produce any document subsequent thereto, there 3 is a specific provision for it. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent no.2 contended that this is a matter relating to eviction of disputed property which was filed in the year 1998 and the purpose of present objection raised on behalf of the defendants is only to delay the proceedings. He referred Order 13 Rule 1(3)(a) CPC and contended that any document can be produced at any stage during cross-examination of a witness of opposite party. The document will be exhibited only in case the same is admitted during cross-examination of a witness, otherwise it will not be exhibited. He, therefore, contended that the trial court rightly over-ruled the objection of the defendants and there is no illegality in the impugned order, so as to interfere with the same. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order. No doubt that all documents are required to be produced before settlement of issues as per rule 1 of Order 13 CPC. The documents can be filed at a later stage also 4 but that can be done only by filing of the application and with the permission of the Court. The plaintiff can produce the documents at a later stage under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. The defendants can produce the documents at a later stage under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC. So far as production of document for the purpose of cross-examination of the witnesses of the opposite party is concerned, the matter is governed by clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 13. The trial court has considered the relevant provisions of law while rejecting the objection of the defendants-petitioners. The matter is fully covered by Order 13 Rule 1 sub-rule (3) clause (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. There will be no order as to costs. 9. In view of the dismissal of writ petition itself, there is no need to pass any order on the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution and the same also stands disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK