[2026:RJ-JP:20246] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14495/2024 Miss. Soraj Parmar Daughter Of Late Shri Kishan Singh Parmar, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 6 (Six) D/311 (Three Hundred Eleven ), Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Shri Pallav Sharma Son Of Brijmohan Sharma, Resident Of 116 (One Hundred Sixteen), M.p. Colony, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan, At Present Resident Of 6 ( Six) D/311 (Three Hundred Eleven), Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Sharma (Present in Person) Mr. Rahul Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 13/05/2026 1. The matter comes upon an application No. 2/2026 seeking modification of the present writ petition. 2. This Court finds that the application for modification has been filed by the petitioner after a lapse of two years, contending that the earlier counsel who had filed the writ petition had not drafted the same appropriately. In the opinion of this Court, such a ground does not warrant amendment of the present writ petition. 2. Therefore, merely on account of a change of counsel, no permission for modification or amendment can be granted by the Court. Accordingly, the application for modification is hereby rejected. 3. With the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition is finally heard. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 29.07.2024, passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, [2026:RJ-JP:20246] (2 of 6) [CW-14495/2024] in Civil Suit No. 45/2014, whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC seeking additional documents to be taken on record has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner has been wrongly rejected by the learned trial Court. He further submits that the documents sought to be taken on record are necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute. 4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute pertains to a suit for specific performance, and the documents sought to be produced are relevant and material for effective adjudication of the matter. He further contends that, the said documents would assist the Court in recording proper findings of fact and deciding the questions of law in their correct perspective. He submits that that non-consideration of these documents would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner and may result in failure of justice. 4.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order has been passed without properly appreciating the grievance of the petitioner, though it is a settled principle of law that parties must be afforded a fair opportunity to produce documents in support of their case. He further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to assign cogent reasons while rejecting the application. 4.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, at the time of filing the reply to the suit, certain documents were not available with the petitioner. The documents sought to be produced, namely, a pen drive, photographs, copy of FIR No. [2026:RJ-JP:20246] (3 of 6) [CW-14495/2024] 649/2017, railway ticket, registration certificate of Hero Puch moped, receipt of population register, copy of FIR No. 123/2008, complaint pertaining to Police Station Vaishali Nagar, etc., are public documents and electronic evidence essential for a fair adjudication of the suit. He also submits that a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has been filed along with the said documents. According to the petitioner, these documents would not adversely affect the plaintiff’s case; rather, they would assist the Court in conducting a fair trial. 4.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq & Anr. v. Munshilal & Anr.; (1981) 2 SCC 788. 4.5 In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the present writ petition be allowed, the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 be quashed and set aside, and the application filed by the petitioner be allowed in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the same does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 5.1 Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner were filed at a highly belated stage of the proceedings, and no sufficient or satisfactory explanation for such delay has been furnished either before the learned trial Court or in the present writ petition. It is [2026:RJ-JP:20246] (4 of 6) [CW-14495/2024] further contended that the petitioner has failed to establish how the said documents are necessary or essential for proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. According to the respondent, the attempt of the petitioner is merely to prolong the proceedings and fill up lacunae in the case at a belated stage, which is impermissible in law. 5.2 Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the learned trial Court, after considering all relevant aspects of the matter, has rightly rejected the application and that the impugned order is based on sound judicial reasoning and settled principles of law. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court under its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, he prays that the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned trial Court be upheld in the interest of justice. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6.1 This Court finds that most of the documents sought to be placed on record by the defendant-petitioner are merely photocopies and neither the original documents nor certified copies thereof have been produced before the learned trial Court. The application further indicates that a pen drive was also filed; however, no particulars whatsoever have been furnished regarding the contents contained therein. Moreover, neither any transcript nor any certificate explaining the contents of the electronic record was placed on record before the learned trial Court. In absence thereof, the authenticity, relevancy, and admissibility of such [2026:RJ-JP:20246] (5 of 6) [CW-14495/2024] electronic material could not have been examined in accordance with law. 6.2 This Court further finds that the suit in question was instituted on 10.03.2014 and the written statement came to be filed by the defendant-petitioner on 29.09.2018. The application for taking additional documents on record was filed on 21.10.2023 at a highly belated stage, when the plaintiff’s evidence was already in progress. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the petitioner for such inordinate delay in producing the said documents. 6.3 This Court is of the considered opinion that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1(A) CPC require a party to produce the documents in its possession along with the pleadings or, at the very least, to furnish sufficient reasons for non-production at the appropriate stage. In the present case, neither the original documents nor legally admissible copies thereof were produced before the learned trial Court. Similarly, with regard to the electronic evidence allegedly contained in the pen drive, the mandatory requirements governing admissibility of electronic evidence were not duly complied with and even no transcript has been produced. 6.4 This Court further finds that permitting such documents to be brought on record at an advanced stage of trial, without proper explanation and without satisfying the foundational requirements of admissibility, would seriously prejudice the orderly conduct of the proceedings and unnecessarily delay adjudication of the suit. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly exercised its discretion while rejecting the application. [2026:RJ-JP:20246] (6 of 6) [CW-14495/2024] 6.5 Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, jurisdictional error, or perversity in the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the learned trial Court so as to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not call for any interference by this Court. 6.6 Considering the fact that the suit has been pending for a considerable period of time, it is expected that the learned trial Court shall make all endeavours to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 6.6 In view of the above, the present writ is hereby dismissed. 6.7 Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/62