- (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has implored to quash and set aside the order dated 25th May, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), No.3, Kota.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the petitioner-defendant in the court of Additional Civil Judge, Sr.Division, No.3, Kota, on various grounds as enumerated in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 8 of CPC imploring the court to take certain documents on record. The learned trial court dismissed the application on the ground that these documents were not related to the facts of the suit. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the documents which are relevant to the suit can be filed under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of CPC even at the later stage, but with the leave of the court. The learned trial court has wrongly observed that the said documents were not related to the suit, hence, the impugned order being contrary to law deserves to be set aside. He has sited one judgment of Kalu Ram & Ors. Versus Om Prakash & Anr. reported in 2008(2) DNJ (Raj) 875, in support thereof. E converso, the learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper and contended that it did not warrant any intervention. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the impugned order, it is revealed that the learned trial court dismissed the application on the simple ground that the documents were photo-stat copies of the original documents and were not at all related with the facts of the suit. On being asked, as to how these documents were relevant to the suit?, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain properly that these document were relevant for that particular purpose. Having perused the written statement of defence, it is further revealed that there is not even a whisper of the said document in the reply, then, how can it be said that these documents are relevant to be taken on record for the just decision of the suit. Merely that the documents can be taken on record with the leave of the court, does not suggest that any document if filed at the belated stage must be taken on record and the leave must be granted by the court. So far as the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the facts of the case of Kalu Ram (supra) are altogether distinct. This High Court, in that case categorically observed that the documents had an nexus with the report lodged with the police and they were relevant for the just decision of the suit. The facts of the case on hand are altogether distinct. The petitioner-defendant neither made any whisper of these documents in the written statement of defence nor made any mention of these documents in any list of documents. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the said documents are relevant and have got bearing with the reply filed by the petitioner-defendant. The impugned order rendered by the learned trial court is found to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to my firm view the same warrants no intervention. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. ;