JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of learned Civil Judge, Pali dt. 5. 2. 94 by which the defendants-application moved under Order 13 Rule 2, C. P. C. has been dismissed on the ground that most of the documents filed are already on record and the application has simply been moved to further delay the disposal of the suit as the dates are being fixed from August 5, 1993 for final arguments.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that delay has occurred in the suit on account of change of Advocates, the petitioners are illiterate persons, documents are Crtified copies of the Municipal records and if they are not taken on record they would suffer irreparable injury. In reply, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the application has simply been moved to further delay the disposal of the suit pending since 1989 and evidence of the parties has been closed about 1-1/2 years ago. It is not in dispute that the documents which are sought to be brought on record are certified copies of the Municipal records and are admissible in evidence under Sec. 274, Raj. Municipal Act, 1959. As such no further delay would occur if these documents are taken on record on payment of heavy cost. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed on payment of Rs. 500/-as costs. If the plaintiff-non petitioner wants to produce any evidence in their rebuttal, he may produce the same. However, this will not entitle the defendant. petitioners to further produce their oral evidence which has already been closed and against which S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 516/93 has been dismissed by this Court on 26. 8. 1993. As far as possible, the trial court will decide the suit within three months. .;