JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 17-1-2009 passed by the learned Judge, Rent Tribunal, Kota (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 , read with 151 C.P.C., the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2005 the respondent-landlord, has filed eviction petition before the Rent Tribunal, Kota seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of bona-fide necessity and non-use of the rented premises by the tenant. The respondent has also prayed for revision of rent. The petitioner filed reply and denied the fact of non-use of the shop. He also denied that the landlord is in need of the shop for his personal necessity. He did not deny the monthly rent to be Rs. 1500/-. The petitioner pleaded that the landlord possesses several shops in the same commercial building. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, on 17-11-2005 the learned Tribunal framed five issues, and both the parties led their evidence. 4. After leading the evidence, on 9-7-2008, the petitioner moved an application for amending the reply, but the said application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 19-7-2008. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing the writ petition before this court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 9-9-2008. Thereafter on 11-11-2008, the petitioner moved an application for taking on record the family settlement. The said application has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 17-1-2009. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the documents were relevant in order to solve the controversy in issue. For, according to respondent-landlord he required the rented premises on the ground of bona-fide necessity. The family settlement, which the petitioner proposed to produce, clearly prove certain shops, which were lying vacant, had fallen in the share of the landlord. Therefore, if there was any bona-fide necessity, the same could be fulfilled by the availability of the shops which had fallen in his share and which were lying vacant. Thus, the learned Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the application of the petitioner. Therefore, if there was any bona-fide necessity, the same could be fulfilled by the availability of the shops which had fallen in his share and which were lying vacant. Thus, the learned Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the application of the petitioner. In order to buttress his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Asha Ram v. Ram Lal, 1977 WLN (U.C.) 401 . 6. On the other hand, Mr. R.P.Vijay, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, has vehemently contended that even on earlier occasion the petitioner had filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. for bringing on record the same family settlement. The said application was earlier dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Against the said order of dismissal of the application, the petitioner had filed writ petition before this Court. This court had also dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, now the petitioner is prevented from re-agitating the entire issue all over again. Moreover, the case is listed for final arguments, and various dates have been taken by the petitioner for final arguments. Therefore, it is a clever subterfuge on the part of the petitioner to prolong the proceeding. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and carefully perused the impugned order. 8. Although it has been pleaded that the document is relevant for solving the controversy in issue, but even on earlier occasion the petitioner had tried to bring on record the same family settlement, and the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Subsequently, even the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by this court. Therefore, the entire issue whether the petitioner should be permitted to bring on record the family settlement has already been decided. Therefore, now the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-open the entire issue once again, as he is hit by the doctrine of es-topple. Moreover, once a trial reaches the stage of final arguments, ordinarily the parties should not be permitted to bring in a fresh documentary evidence so as to demand that the case be re-opened. If the parties had the document available with them during the course of trial, there is no reason why the said document was not submitted by them at an earlier stage. If the parties had the document available with them during the course of trial, there is no reason why the said document was not submitted by them at an earlier stage. It is not the case of the petitioner that the family settlement was newly discovered, and the same was unavailable despite his due diligence. Since the family settlement was within the knowledge of the petitioner, nothing prevented the petitioner from praying to the court to summon the said document during the course of trial. Hence, it appears that the petitioner is desperately trying to prolong the proceeding. 9. The case of Asha Ram v. Ram Lal (supra) is inapplicable to the present case. Hence the case does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******