1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Ghanshyam Das V/s. Shri Nandkishore (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1028/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order :: April 29, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Z.A. Naqvi for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Gupta for the respondent. With the consent of both the parties, this case is being decided at this stage itself. Aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2009 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed, the petitioner has appraoched this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had filed a civil suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity of his son, Ravishankar. During the course of the evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had admitted that he had other space available. However, he claimed that the space which 2 was shown in the photograph, the said space was being used as a “storeroom”. Therefore, the said space could not be used for establishing a shop for the benefit of his son, Ravishankar. Subsequently, the very same space was converted into a shop. Therefore, the appellant wanted to bring the photographs of the newly converted space on record. He also wanted to submit certain CDs trying to establish his case that the very same space has been converted into a shop which is now readily available with the landlord. However, vide order dated 08.12.2009, the learned Judge has dismissed the application. Hence, this petition before this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner is merely trying to delay the case and therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in the dismissing the application filed by the petitioner and was also justified in denying the petitioner an opportunity to bring the newly taken photographs on record. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that initially the landlord had pleaded that the space was being used as a “storeroom”. The photographs certainly show that the space had shutters upon it. Subsequently, the shutters have been removed and glass doors have been placed as is evident from the newly taken photographs. Thus, the petitioner is 3 justified in claiming that a new shop is created in the space, which would be sufficient for the purpose of the landlord. Since these photographs reveal the subsequent development of event, since these photographs are germane to the decision of the controversy in issue, the learned Judge, in fact, should have permitted these photographs to be taken on record. The learned Judge is not justified in claiming that the petitioner is trying to delay the trial. For, the trial is still at the stage of evidence of the petitioner. Therefore, the order dated 08.12.2009 is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to take the photographs and CDs on record. Since it is a battle between the landlord and tenant, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.ASopa/-