1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5472/2008 Shri Babu Khan @ Abdul Majid Versus Shafi Mohd. & Another Date of Order :: 12th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Jai Kumar Yadav for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent on the ground of bonafide necessity in the year 2001. The written statement was filed by defendant petitioner in May, 2003. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) readwith Section 151 CPC for production of certain documents on record. The trial court rejected the said application vide order dated 16th May, 2008. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant petitioner has preferred this writ petition, wherein he has also challenged 2 another earlier order of the trial court dated 16th November, 2006, whereby the trial court had passed an order earlier that document in question is not registered, therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence and cannot be allowed to be taken on record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that trial court has committed an illegality in not allowing the application of the petitioner, whereas the requirement of clause (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 is only to take leave of the Court for the purpose to take the document on record and there is no other requirement. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting his application. The trial court has observed in the impugned order dated 16th May, 2008 that the said written Tehreer was disallowed vide order dated 16th November, 2006 and the said order was not challenged by the petitioner. The date and month of the execution of the document is not available on the document. It is relevant to mention that petitioner has also challenged the earlier order dated 16th November, 2006 in this writ 3 petition which was preferred on 27th May, 2008. So far as order dated 16th November, 2006 is concerned, it is sufficient to mention that earlier this order was revisable and period of limitation for revision was only 90 days, whereas the present writ petition has been preferred after a delay of more than 18 months, therefore, the writ petition against this order is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and the same is hereby dismissed. So far as another order dated 16th May, 2008 is concerned, I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the said order so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK