JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against the order dated 8.8.2008 and review order dated 3.1.2009 passed by the learned trial court refusing to take on record the agreement (Exh.A/1) and mark the same as exhibit during the course of defendant's evidence. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant Shri S.L. Jain relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Vipin Kumar & Anr. v. Addl. District Judge, Nimbahera & Ors., reported in 2010(2) Western Law Cases (Raj.) UC 88 and in the case of Munna v. Om Prakash & Anr., reported in 2008(2) DNJ (Raj.) 1116 and urged that the said document was wrongly refused to be produced before the court during the course of recording of statement of defendant's witness Mst. Khatoon wife of defendant Ahmed, though exception has been in Order 8, Rule 1 (A)(4)(b) of Civil Procedure Code. 3. Being aggrieved by this order of the learned trial court, the petitioner-defendant has approached this Court by way of writ petition. 4. On the other hand Shri J.K. Bhaiya, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent urged that these very documents were refused to be taken on record by the learned trial court when produced from the side of defendant No. 2 Ahmed-husband of the present witness Mst. Khatoon and such order was challenged by defendant before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6170 of 2003, which came to be dismissed by this Court summarily on 26.9.2007 and, therefore, at this stage the said documents cannot be taken on record and marked as exhibit by the learned trial court when the evidence of Mst. Khatoon W/o Ahmed is being recorded by the learned trial court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that though the said documents of course cannot be taken on record by the learned trial court and marked as exhibit, however, in view of the exception carved out in Order 8, Rule 1 (A)(4)(b) of Civil Procedure Code, the said documents can be handed over to a witness merely to refresh the memory whatsoever be the purpose whether for collateral purpose and otherwise. The document cannot be taken on record and marked as exhibit and defendant cannot be permitted to introduce the same documents which were earlier refused to be taken on record by this Court while dismissing Writ Petition No. 6170 of 2003, however, since the law permits the said documents to be referred for the purpose of refreshing the memory of a witness, therefore, for that limited purpose only such document can be referred to by the witness. 6. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.Writ Petition Disposed of as Above. *******