Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners -Defendants No. 5 to 9, whose application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for taking certain documents on record has been dismissed by Additional District Judge, No. 2, Ajmer (for short 'the Trial Court') vide order dt. 18.04.2013. The petitioners -defendants No. 5 to 9 have assailed the aforesaid order on various grounds. Mr. Manish Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Trial Court has failed in recording finding that all the documents were in possession of the petitioners when they file written statement in August, 2007 and they failed to give satisfactory explanation for the delay of six years in filing such documents. In recording that finding, learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that during pendency of the suit on 07.03.2011 compromise was submitted by the plaintiff and the Defendants No. 1 to 3 in which they projected possession with regard to one room whereas said room was in possession of the petitioners since 1966. It was for that reason that necessity arose for the petitioners to file the documents. The application was filed when the suit was listed for final arguments. It is argued that it cannot be a reason for the Trial Court for refusing to take the documents on record and if the Trial Court is persuaded that the documents are indeed necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter, it can, at any stage, allow the documents to be taken on record and this can be compensated by awarding cost to other party. What is of paramount consideration, whether the documents are relevant for deciding the controversy in question. If the documents are taken on record, the plaintiff -Respondent No. 2 will also be permitted to produce on record the documents/evidence in rebuttal.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Respondent No. 2 -plaintiff opposed the writ petition and submitted that the written statement was filed by the petitioners -defendants No. 5 to 9 way back in 2007 whereas the documents have been sought to be placed on record with delay of six years and proceedings of trial have been stayed by order of this Court dt. 07.01.2014 and the matter is getting delayed. The order passed by the Trial Court is not just and reasonable. It is argued that if the documents are taken on record, the Respondent No. 2 -plaintiff should be paid adequate compensation for the enormous delay of six years. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the compromise was filed by the Respondent No. 2 -plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 3 on 07.03.2011 in which they disputed position with regard to possession of one room. Filing of the application by the petitioners in April, 2013 cannot be said to be enormously delayed, as in any case this documents would enable Trial Court for effective adjudication of controversy in question. However, inconvenience caused to the Respondent No. 2 -plaintiff can be compensated by award of reasonable cost. Considering that the suit in the present matter was filed seven years ago, appropriate direction is required to be given to the Trial Court to conclude the present suit. In the result, present writ petition deserves to succeed and the same is, hereby, allowed. Impugned order dt. 18.04.2013 passed by the Trial Court is set aside and documents filed by the petitioners are allowed to be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/ - (Rupees Two Thousands only) to the Respondent No. 2 -plaintiff with further direction that the petitioners -defendants shall be entitled to produce their witnesses to prove the documents within one month from the next date fixed before the Trial Court and if they require any summon to be issued to such attesting witnesses of the Will, they shall make such application on the next date fixed in the matter enabling the Trial Court to issue summon for presence of such witnesses within the aforesaid period of one month. The Respondent No. 2 -plaintiff shall also be entitled to produce his evidence in rebuttal within one month thereafter in the similar manner. Trial Court is directed to finally conclude the suit within six months from the next date fixed before it. Application No. 55993/2014 stands disposed of. ;