[2025:RJ-JP:37870] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13637/2025 1. Gangadhar S/o Shri Chhitar, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Village Chandnoli, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan). 2. Mukesh S/o Gangadhar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Chandnoli, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan). 3. Rahul S/o Gangadhar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Chandnoli, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan). 4. Premdevi W/o Gangadhar, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Chandnoli, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan). 5. Meena @ Khushboo W/o Mukesh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Chandnoli, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan). ----Defendants/Applicants/Petitioners Versus Ramphool S/o Shri Kanhaiya, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Village Chandnoli, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.). ----Plaintiff/Non-applicant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Puri & Mr. Ananth Shankar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 11/09/2025 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bonli, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Suit No. 24/2019 whereby the application under Order VIII Rule [2025:RJ-JP:37870] (2 of 7) [CW-13637/2025] 1A(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed. 2. The facts emanating from the pleadings are that the respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit dated 06.08.2014 seeking permanent injunction with respect to an alleged two-feet wide Gali situated on the northern side of his house. The defendants- petitioners filed their written statement alongwith counter claim dated 17.02.2020 denying the averments made in the suit. 3. The learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners submits that during cleaning of the household articles, a patta No.93 dated 15.05.2018 issued by the Gram Panchayat Bhadoti along with Receipt No.9 showing allotment of Plot measuring 1587.2 Sq. Ft. (East-West 25.6 Ft., North-South 62 Ft.) was found showing lawful possession/title of the petitioners over the site where the alleged Gali exists. Following this, the defendants-petitioners moved an application dated 06.01.2025 under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for taking the alleged patta and the receipt on record. 4. The respondent-plaintiff then moved an application for appointment of Mouka Commissioner which was accepted by the learned trial Court and Mr. Mohd. Zahid Sherwani was appointed, who submitted the mouka report on 08.08.2019 before the learned trial Court along with the Nazari Naqsha which forms a part and parcel of the mouka report. The defendants-petitioners caught an objectionable and substantial difference in the site report and nazari naqsha. [2025:RJ-JP:37870] (3 of 7) [CW-13637/2025] 5. The learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners vide impugned order dated 28.07.2025 observing that the petitioners had not pleaded about the alleged patta in the written statement or counter-claim and that the evidence stage is almost complete and the documents were not shown to be relevant to the subject matter. Thus, aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2025, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners submits that under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the only consideration is whether the party has shown reasonable cause for non-production of the documents earlier which are necessary for just decision and that the relevance and probative value of the documents are to be adjudged at the final adjudication stage and not at this stage. It has also been submitted that this Court in Smt. Dhapu Devi v. Civil Judge (SD) and Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10600/2011 decided on 19.10.2011 and Pradeep Kumar v. Jagdish Kumar, S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 7846/2025 decided on 28.05.2025, and the Delhi High Court in Nishant Hannan & Ors. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, CM(M) No. 262/2014 decided on 08.08.2014, relying on Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy (1994) 4 SCC 659, have held that if the documents are relevant and are required to avoid failure of justice then they can be taken on record at any stage. Thus, the learned trial Court misapplied the precedents by going into the merits of the case. [2025:RJ-JP:37870] (4 of 7) [CW-13637/2025] It has been contested that by rejecting the application, the learned trial Court deprived the petitioners of his right to present material evidence which is against the principles of natural justice and that there was no mala fide and deliberate withholding as the patta was misplaced and was only found during cleaning. He alleged that there has been no prejudice against the plaintiff- respondent as he had availed full opportunity to cross-examine and rebut and thus, the impugned order defeats the object of Order VIII Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and deserves to be quashed. 7. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record. 8. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners and the facts on record, the Court has to examine whether the application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed at a belated stage of evidence recording when it is irrelevant to the subject matter be allowed. 9. The provision of Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under:- “1A. Duty of defendants to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him - (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendants under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” [2025:RJ-JP:37870] (5 of 7) [CW-13637/2025] 10. The Co-ordinate Bench at Principle seat Jodhpur in the case of Dinesh Hingar vs Kishanlal, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1393/2024, decided on 22-05-2024 observed as under:- “18. The Legislature in its wisdom has engrafted provision like Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) CPC to give some latitude to the defendants to produce document at the later stage of the trial but then such a latitude cannot be claimed by a litigant as a matter of right. It is absolutely within discretion of the court to allow a defendants to produce some documents at the later stage of the proceedings of the suit if the court thinks that there were genuine reasons available with the defendants for not producing the document within time.” 11. The Co-ordinate Bench at Principle seat Jodhpur in the case of Sahi Ram v. Bhanwari Devi S.B. Civil Writ No. 4891 of 2016, decided on 16-12-2016 observed as under:- “...The documents relating to having conducted funeral and last rites of the deceased-plaintiff would be of no relevance with regard to the issue No. 1 and the application for taking documents on record under Order 8 Rule (1-A)(3), when the final arguments are only required to be advanced, is nothing but to delay the further proceedings. In view of the limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as laid down in the aforesaid judgments and considering that the matter is hanging for a quite long time, now in civil court, no interference is warranted and the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.” 12. Further, this Court in the case of Nandlal v. Dharampal and Others, S.B. Civil Writs No. 9937/2018, decided on 10.07.2018 observed as under:- “...Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC indeed confers discretion on the trial court to allow belated filing of the documents. But the discretion has to be exercised judicially and for good reason. The trial court has taken into [2025:RJ-JP:37870] (6 of 7) [CW-13637/2025] consideration the overall facts of the case including the delay in filing the application, refused to exercise its discretion under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases has held that where discretionary orders of the trial court are well considered and reasoned, there should be no interference therewith by the superior courts. This would be moreso in the so exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to be exercised in situations of jurisdictional error, perversity, patent illeGality, manifest injustice to a party before court. None of the aforesaid situations obtain in the instant petition. I therefore see no ground to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 13. In the present case, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, distinguishing the facts of the present case from those cited by the petitioners. It has been observed that the evidence stage is almost complete and the documents prayed to be admitted have not been mentioned in the written statement and counter-claim presented by the defendants-petitionerss, and thus, are not reflected to be related to the case. 14. Having regard to the observations of the Hon'ble Courts as quoted above and the discussions made and also taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case and prayer made in this petition, the Court is of the opinion that it was well within the discretion of the learned trial Court to reject the application filed under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the documents were filed at a belated stage when the recording of evidence was almost complete and the same do not appear to be relevant for the purpose of defence of the defendants- [2025:RJ-JP:37870] (7 of 7) [CW-13637/2025] petitioners. Therefore, allowing the petition would mean unnecessarily delaying the entire case and thus, there exists no ground to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as the submissions of the defendants- petitioners lack merit. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bonli, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Suit No. 24/2019 is upheld and does not warrant any interference. 17. Stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /26