JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that order dated 14.3.2012 (Annex. 5) passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) No. 2, Bhilwara in Civil Original Case No. 56/2004 (199/1996) may be quashed and application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1, C.P.C., may be allowed while directing the trial Court to take the documents on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that documents filed alongwith application are relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the controversy with regard to possession over the land in question of the petitioner but the trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the said application has been filed at belated stage only with a view to fill up lacunae, therefore, in the interest of justice such application deserves to be rejected which is erroneous. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused order impugned dated 4.3.2012. 4. Admittedly, the suit was filed by Mohd. Rafeek plaintiff in the year 1996 and matter is pending in the trial Court for last 16 years and, all of a sudden, on 6.9.2011 application under Order 8 Rule 1, C.P.C., was filed by the petitioner alongwith certain documents which is pass-port, copy of election card of petitioner-defendant's father and a notice given by the Municipal Board, Bhilwara to the mother of the petitioner-defendant alongwith some other documents. In my opinion, to prove the fact the defendant was required to file documentary evidence to prove possession of the land before 1996; but, after 15 years, these documents have been filed and, out of those documents, some are not even related to the present controversy. Therefore, the reason assigned by the trial Court for refusing to take those documents on record is justified. Learned trial Court gave reasons for rejecting application under Order 8 Rule 1, C.P.C., therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shalini Shyarn Shetty's case reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 , it is not a case in which interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted.In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******