1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4892/2008 {Ravindra Ojha Versus Yashwant Singh & Another} Date of Order :: 28th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya for the petitioner Mr. J.P. Goyal for the respondent no.1 BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Goyal appears for respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 is only a formal party, therefore, its service is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction with a prayer that he may be allowed to perform seva pooja in the disputed temple. The written statement was filed by the defendant. Thereafter issues were framed. The plaintiff completed his evidence and thereafter the case was fixed for defendant's evidence and at that stage the plaintiff filed an application in the trial court alongwith certain documents to take the same on record. The trial court rejected the said application vide order dated 1st 2 April, 2008, which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the plaintiff. 4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner contended that these documents are necessary and material for proper adjudication of the case, whereas the trial court rejected the application only on the ground that now matter is fixed for cross-examination of defendant's witnesses and no reasonable explanation has been given for not producing these documents on record at the appropriate stage. He contended that the documents had already been filed by him alongwith an application for temporary injunction. The file of temporary injunction was also summoned by the trial court, however, the some documents were photostat copies, therefore, the exhibits could not be marked thereon. He further contended that looking to the controversy involved in the present case, the documents are relevant and material and the same may be allowed to be taken on record. So far as delay of proceedings is concerned, the defendant- respondent can be compensated by awarding reasonable amount of cost. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent 3 contended that the plaintiff filed an application to summon the file of temporary injunction on 15th April, 2006, which was allowed and file was summoned and thereafter plaintiff filed its affidavit but documents were not exhibited by plaintiff himself. Now after completion of plaintiff's evidence, there is no justification for filing the present application to take these documents on record. He further contended that all documents are not original, therefore, the photostat copies of the documents cannot be directed to be exhibited in the case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his only prayer is that whatever original documents are available on record, may be exhibited and he will not lead any evidence in support of these documents. So far as photostat copies are concerned, the same may not be exhibited. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in case the original documents are exhibited as plaintiff's documents without any further time for evidence to be adduced in this behalf by the plaintiff. 8. After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that original 4 documents may be allowed to be exhibited without any further time to lead evidence in this behalf. 9. Consequently the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to mark exhibit on original documents filed by the plaintiff alongwith the application and the documents, which are only certified copies will not be allowed to be exhibited in the case. The plaintiff will not lead any evidence in support of these documents. 10. The cost is made easy. 11. In view of above, there is no need to pass any order on the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution filed by the respondent and the same stands disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK