JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed a suit for declaration, injunction and cancellation of sale-deeds dated 05.03.2005 and 30.06.2010. He had also challenged the adoption of the defendant as the defendant claims to be an adopted son of the deceased, Mohru. In order to prove the fact that the defendant was not the adopted son of Mohru, the petitioner wanted to submit the voter list as well as certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Village of Gram Panchayat, Newta with regard to the ration card issued. In order to bring these documents on record, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC. However, vide order dated 19.07.2010, the learned Judge has dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since one of the issues before the learned trial Court is with regard to whether the defendant was an adopted son of Mohru or not, therefore, the voter-list is an important document. For, the said document would through light on the said controversy. Similarly, the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat is a pertinent document as it, too, throws, light on the said controversy. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has erred in dismissing the said application ostensibly on the ground of delay. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the civil suit was filed as far back as 1997. It is only after the evidence of both the sides were completed, it is only after the matter was listed for final arguments on 05.03.2010, it is only after the parties have taken about ten adjournments for the final arguments, that suddenly the petitioner decided to file an application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC. It is only after the evidence of both the sides were completed, it is only after the matter was listed for final arguments on 05.03.2010, it is only after the parties have taken about ten adjournments for the final arguments, that suddenly the petitioner decided to file an application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC. The learned Judge has rightly concluded that since these documents could have been discovered by the petitioner, and since these documents were readily available during the course of trial, there is no cogent reason for submission of these documents at the last stage of the trial. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 6. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******