JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned order dated 10.4.2008, the petitioner's two applications - one filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C and another filed under Order 8 Rule 3 C.P.C for taking on record certain receipts, were dismissed by the trial Court. 3. The petitioner submitted that the plaintiff filed suit no.42/2001 under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. He withdrew that suit under assumption that he is entitled to withdraw it under Section 32 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 were as in fact, the Act of 2001 was not made applicable. SB Civil Writ Petition No.7493/2008 Punam Chand. v. Shankar Lal & Ors. to the area wherein the premises is situated. However, after withdrawing the suit, the plaintiff filed a fresh suit which is present suit under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. 4. The petitioner/defendant was not allowed to take objection for non-maintainability of the subsequently filed suit, then he approached this Court by filing a writ petition. This Court while deciding the said writ petition vide order dated 1.10.2007, observed that the petitioner will be free to take objection in the written statement. When the matter again came up before the trial court, then the petitioner submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The trial court was of the view that the plea is already on record and, therefore, the trial court framed additional issue no.7 on the basis of the aforesaid plea of the petitioner. In view of the above reasons that the plea of law as facts are not in dispute of plaintiff's filing earlier suit no.42/2001, its withdrawal and filing new suit, therefore, the trial court rejected the application for amendment. 5. Since the plea is already on record and the issue has been framed, therefore, I do not find3 SB Civil Writ Petition No.7493/2008 Punam Chand. v. Shankar Lal & Ors. that the trial court has committed any illegality in rejecting the amendment application. 6. By the same order, the trial court rejected the petitioner's application under Order 8 Rule 3 C.P.C for taking on record the few receipts. v. Shankar Lal & Ors. that the trial court has committed any illegality in rejecting the amendment application. 6. By the same order, the trial court rejected the petitioner's application under Order 8 Rule 3 C.P.C for taking on record the few receipts. The trial court while rejecting the application itself in the same order observed that the defendant will be free to cross examine the plaintiff on these rent receipts and will also be free to exhibit the documents sought to be produced by the defendant. 7. This order on the face of it is self contradictory. Once the documents can be used for cross examination of the plaintiff by the defendant and can be exhibited, how they can remain out of the record. That part of the trial court's order clearly shows that the documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the suit. In view of the above, the trial court's order rejecting the application filed under Order 8 Rule 3 C.P.C cannot be sustained as in fact even after rejecting the application, the relief has been granted. 8. In view of the above, this writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 10.4.2008 dismissing the petitioner's application filed under Order 8 Rule 3 C.P.C is set aside and the said application is allowed.Petition partly allowed. *******