ALOK SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 25.08.2012, passed by the Additional District & Session Judge No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has allowed an application under order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC at the instance of the respondent -defendant No. 1 for taking certain documents on record. I have perused the impugned order dated 25.08.2012 and the writ petition.
(2.) Heard and considered. The learned trial court in its order dated 25.08.2012 has stated that the respondent -defendant No. 1 was being allowed to file the documents. But no opinion on the admissibility of the said documents was being given by the trial court even while allowing the said documents to be filed. In my considered opinion, if the petitioner as plaintiff in the suit has any objection to the admissibility of the documents in issue, he will be free to raise those objections at the appropriate time in the course of proceedings before the trial court. Even otherwise the limitations of this Court in the exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are extremely limited as detailed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil : [(2010) 8 SCC 329]. In my considered opinion, the order dated 25.08.2012 allowing the filing of the documents under Order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC does not cause any manifest injustice to the plaintiff, the petitioner herein, nor is without jurisdiction.
(3.) AS stated above, the petitioner as plaintiff will be free to raise all just objections as available in law with regard to the admissibility of the documents sought to be relied upon by the respondent -defendant No. 1. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Stay application stands dismissed in view of the writ petition being disposed of.;