IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 27.3.2009. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2527/2007 Kindoori Lal & Ors. Vs. Sharwan Lal & Anr. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Pankaj Gupta,for the petitioner. Shri Mahesh Gupta, for the respondent. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.4.2006 by which the application submitted by the petitioner for leading the documentary evidence in respect of the fact that the plaintiff landlord is running his business in the name and style of M/s. Anandi Lal Sharwan Lal which is in the premises as mentioned in the said document pertaining to the said firm. This plea was raised in the written statement by the defendant. But on account of the said plea being taken by the defendant, the plaintiff landlord subsequently got his name deleted from the record of the partnership firm. This fact is what the defendant tenant wanted to bring on the record by placing the document on record. While it is true that the petitioner did not file the document earlier and also did not seek the leave of the court for producing the said document before incorporating this fact in the affidavit of the witnesses in defence filed on behalf of the defendant. The learned trial court to that extent was justified in refusing the permission to the defendant to bring the said fact in evidence. The contention of the learned counsel for the non petitioner plaintiff to that extent cannot be rejected that this fact along with the document could not have been brought on record by way of the statement of the witnesses. However, I am of the opinion that the petitioner defendant can be allowed an opportunity to produce the said document on record since they are all reported to be public documents coming from proper custody as alleged by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the defendant petitioner has been filing repeated application only with a view to delay the proceedings. It was also submitted that there was nothing to prevent the defendant from bringing the aforesaid fact on record earlier since it was within the knowledge of the petitioner, having been raised the written statement. I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the learned trial court grants leave to the defendant to produce the aforesaid document in evidence as it may have a bearing on the points at issue. In the facts and circumstances therefore the petitioner is permitted to produce the documents marked as D1 to D9 referred to in the application and lead evidence on the basis of the aforesaid subject to the payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff. The learned trial court would also afford an opportunity to the plaintiff landlord to lead evidence in rebuttal since the documents are being produced at a late stage after the evidence of the plaintiff had already been lead. Subject to the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The suit is of the year 1996 the learned trial court shall take steps to decide the suit expeditiously. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS