1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1050/08 Birdhi Chand through L.Rs. Vs. Nanak Chand through L.Rs. & Ors. Date of order : 6/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri J.P. Goyal for the petitioner. ****** This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 6.12.2007 whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC has been rejected. By this application, the petitioner wanted to place on record photocopy of the accounts book maintained in relation to the M/s. Rajasthan Marble and Glass House-the firm of the HUF and the certificate of registration of the said firm under the Shop and Commercial Establishment Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the said documents could not be mentioned in the earlier plaint and also could not be included in the list of documents because the plaintiff-petitioner could discover it only after the search which he made when a question with regard 2 thereto was put to the plaintiff Ramavtar in his cross examination. It is evident from the impugned order that when PW-1 Ramavtar was asked as to whether any entry of the payment of amount of Rs.5,000/- purchased on the land by M/s. Krishna Oil Mill was made in the account book, he simply pleaded ignorance. When he was further asked whether the said firm M/s. Krishna Oil Mills was making payment of income tax in 1987, in that event also, he could not give any definite answer. The learned trial curt declined to take the documents on record because when the dispute was with regard to M/s. Krishna Oil Mills, therefore, the entry made in the account book of M/s. Rajasthan Marble and Glass House could not be considered relevant. Moreover the entry in question could not be linked with the transaction in dispute. The documents sought to be filed subsequent to the query put to the petitioner in the cross examination do not inspire confidence. In any case, such documents are neither mentioned in the pleading, nor are included in the list of documents. The learned trial court, in my 3 view, therefore, has not committed any error of law in rejecting the application for taking the documents no record. The writ petition is therefore dismissed summarily. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/