JUDGMENT 1. - The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.5.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kekri, District Ajmer, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for taking certain documents on record. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a suit against respondent No. 1 claiming therein that the petitioner had an ancestral property, situated in Khasra Nos. 301, 3102 and 3103, in Mohan Nagar, Kekri. It is further his contention that out of the ancestral property, certain plots were carved out and sold to different persons. However, Plot Nos. 29 and 30 were never sold to the husband of respondent No. 1, Smt. Braj Kanwar. On 2.9.2008, the learned trial Court framed issues. On 29.7.2009, the petitioner's evidence was closed. Subsequently, at the stage of final argument, the petitioner moved an application under Order 7, Rule 14 for taking a conversion order dated 23.10.1983 as well as "the Sajra" on record. However, vide order dated 7.5.2010, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. This Court inquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to when was the conversion order passed? According to the learned counsel, although the conversion order was passed: as early as 23.10.1983, yet the suit was not filed till 2008. Surprisingly, despite the fact that the order was passed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner did not choose to submit the said order while filing the suit. Instead he has waited for the stage of final argument of the case for submitting the said document. There is no cogent justification for not submitting the document at the earliest opportunity. Thus, the learned Magistrate has correctly refused to take the said document on record. 4. The another document, namely, "the Sajra", does not have the dispatch number or date upon it. Even the said document was prepared many years prior to the filing of the suit. Therefore, again there is no explanation as to why the said "Sajra" was not submitted along with the plaint. The petitioner cannot be permitted to pull out the documents like rabbits out of a hat, in order to prolong the trial. Even the said document was prepared many years prior to the filing of the suit. Therefore, again there is no explanation as to why the said "Sajra" was not submitted along with the plaint. The petitioner cannot be permitted to pull out the documents like rabbits out of a hat, in order to prolong the trial. Therefore, there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******