[2025:RJ-JP:14982] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 184/2024 M/s Anupam Furniture Unlimited, Through Proprietor, Smt. Kiran Devi Pareek Wife Of Shri Bajrang Lal Pareek, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 36, Ashok Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Kamal Kishore Falor, Son Of Shri Radhey Shyam Falor 2. Sharda Falor Wife Of Shri Radhey Shyam Falor, R/o A- 192-193, Vidyut Nagar-A, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) At Present Resident Of Super A-5 And 6, Industrial Area, Gindi, Chennai-600032 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta For Respondent(s) : -- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/02/2025 Heard. The petitioner-applicant has filed this petition seeking review/recall of the order dated 21.08.2024 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11019/2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The precise argument raised by counsel for the petitioner/applicant for challenging the order under review is that the documents (i.e., correspondence through emails) are during the pendency of original application before the learned Rent Tribunal and also after 12.03.2020 i.e., after filling written statement by her before the Rent Tribunal and thus, there was no [2025:RJ-JP:14982] (2 of 3) [WRW-184/2024] occasion of filing copies of these emails before the court (along with written statement) as being subsequent events. On 27.11.2019, rent application was filed by the applicants- respondents before the Rent Tribunal. Written statement/reply to the application was filed by non-applicant/petitioner on 12.03.2020. Thereafter, rejoinder and sur-rejoinder were also filed by the respective parties in the matter. On 08.01.2024, the petitioner filed the application for taking some documents (emails etc.) and invoices on record, simply stating therein that these documents (emails and invoices) were not available with him at the time of filing reply/written statement to the application. While dismissing the writ petition, it was observed by this Court that the learned trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application as the petitioner ought to have submitted the documents along with the reply/written statement upon which, he wants to rely his case. The petitioner failed to show any reason for not submitting the existing documents, at that time. The application for taking the questioned documents has also been filed after a lapse of more then one year from the last email sought to be taken on record. The application filed before the learned trial court does not reflect as to how these documents are important for just decision of the case as also lacking of complete details/particulars of the documents sought to be taken on record. The mails/documents which were prior to filing of the reply to the application/written statement could have been produced by the petitioner/applicant along with the reply/written statement to the rent application but same were not produced along with reply and there is no reasonable explanation available for not presenting [2025:RJ-JP:14982] (3 of 3) [WRW-184/2024] the same. So far as the argument that the emails which were sent after filing of the written statement and therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have submitted them along with the reply is concerned, as stated above, the application for taking such documents should have been preferred immediately but here in this case, same has been filed with delay of more than one year. After four years of the filing of the rent application, the application has been filed in the year 2024. There must be a reasonable and suitable check upto what stage, the documents pertaining to subsequent events or dates, may be taken on record because if these documents, subsequent to filing reply/written statements are allowed to be taken on record, the petitioner would have produced another set of subsequent documents especially when the case has reached at advanced stage. After having considered the submissions advanced at bar by learned counsel for the review petitioner and after going through the material available on record, I am of the firm opinion that the order dated 21.08.2024 does not suffer from any infirmity or error apparent on the face of record warranting review thereof. Thus, the instant review application is rejected as being devoid of merit. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /733