1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9747/2007. Alladia and Others. VERSUS Mohd.Hussain. 29.01.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Tarun Jain, for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Hasan, for the respondent. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The matter comes up on the application No.6762 dated 19.02.2008 submitted by the respondent for vacation of the interim order dated 04.12.2007 by which the further proceedings before the learned trial court have been stayed. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner wanted to produce the copies of the jamabandi of the Samwat Year 2045 to 2048 and the mutation Nos.52 and 53 dated 26.06.1957 with a view to rebut the evidence led by the defendant Abdul Aziz who produced certain documents during the course of his cross examination on 21.08.2007. These facts are not in dispute. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted 2 that the petitioner only wants to delay the trial and has moved this application at the fag end of the trial when the evidence is already complete and the case is ripe for hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to lead any evidence and would be satisfied if the documents submitted by him are taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that so far as these documents are concerned, they would have no effect so far as the merits of the case are concerned and it does not establish the case of the petitioner regarding the title over the land in dispute. So far as the above contentions are concerned, this court would not like to pass any order on the merits of the said contentions as that is a matter to be decided by the learned trial court. Suffice it to say that since the petitioner has fairly conceded that the petitioner is only interested in the production of the document without calling any witness in that behalf, I deem it just and proper in the interest of justice looking to the fact that the document sought to be produced are in rebuttal to the evidence of the defendant which were produced during the course of cross examination of his witness DW-3. The learned trial court ought to have allowed an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal for production of the aforesaid documents as 3 he had no opportunity to meet the aforesaid case. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The learned trial court is directed to take the documents in question on record. The application submitted by the respondents for vacation of the interim order is accordingly disposed of since the writ petition itself has been heard and decided. The interim order stands vacated. The stay application stands disposed of. The learned trial court is now free to proceed with the trial expeditiously. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.