[2025:RJ-JP:19501] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9557/2022 M/s Babubhai, Raseed Bhai through Rukhsar S/o Late Shri Babu Bhai Nirmata Utam Babu Chhap Beedi, Karauli Raj. ----Petitioner Versus Abdul Salam S/o Shri Nasar Urf Nasruddeen, R/o Nagaad Khane Ke Paas, Karauli Raj. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta, Adv. for Mr. M.F. Baig For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Gadwal, Adv. Mr. Waseem Akram, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/05/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR No. 1/2017, whereby application for producing the documents filed on behalf of management has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that along with application the petitioner- Management submitted copies of one appointment order as well as affidavit in order to show the correct date of birth of the workman and such documents are relevant for the purpose of proper adjudication on the dispute involved in the instant matter, however, without examining the relevance of the document, by giving mechanical findings the learned Court below has rejected the application. [2025:RJ-JP:19501] (2 of 3) [CW-9557/2022] 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has indicated that the reason assigned by the learned Court below for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-Management is that the documents sought to be produced were mere photocopies of the documents. No affidavit, whatsoever, was filed on behalf of the petitioner-Management in order to show that the aforesaid photocopies are true copies of their original or not. Nor was there anything in the application to show that the petitioner- Management was not in power and possession of the said documents and no application for calling for relevant original documents was also filed. Hence, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 4. I have heard the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 5. The scope of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while examining the interlocutory orders passed by the learned Court below is very very limited. It would come out from perusing the impugned order dated 21.03.2022 that the application for producing the documents on record was filed at the belated stage by the petitioner-Management, when the evidence of both the parties stands completed and the matter was listed for final arguments. The documents sought to be produced were also photocopies with no details with regard to existence of the original documents. 6. Thus, the learned Court below has taken right inference that the application was filed only in order to cause delay in the matter. Petitioner has utterly failed to point out any manifest illegality or perversity in the impugned order. [2025:RJ-JP:19501] (3 of 3) [CW-9557/2022] 7. In view of the above, I find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. Pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /106