JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.9.2008 whereby the defendants' application under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. was rejected by the learned trial court as the learned trial court said that the said documents were sought to be placed on record along with the said application after much delay and after framing of the issues in the matter as since the suit was filed way back in the year 1990, the said document filed with the application in the year 2006 were prayed to be taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits that since the main defendant Banshi Lal expired, these documents came in possession of the LRs of the defendant who were taken on record by the learned trial court only in the year 1996 and since they were found to be relevant by the defendants, they were sought to be taken on record along with the said application. He submits that the trial is still pending and plaintiffs' evidence is still going on. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs on the other hand submits that some of the documents filed with the said application are either not relevant or are forged documents. 4. Be that as it may, in the opinion of this Court since the documents came to the possession of the present LRs of Banshi Lal after his death, the reason given by the learned trial court that for a period of 4 years when the said Banshi Lal was himself alive also these documents could have been filed, is not found to be very cogent reason for rejection of the said application. The amended written statement was filed by the defendants only on 26.4.1997 and the suit remained pending for this reason up to this date after the death of said Banshi Lal. If these documents came into possession of the present LRs at a later stage and which according to the defendants could have strengthened their case, same could be permitted to be taken on record in the facts and circumstances of the case. It goes without saying that the said documents are required to be proved in accordance with law subject to objection of the plaintiff-respondent before the learned trial court. 5. It goes without saying that the said documents are required to be proved in accordance with law subject to objection of the plaintiff-respondent before the learned trial court. 5. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 8.9.2008 is set aside and the application under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. stands allowed. The documents filed with the same be taken on record. No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******