JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order, dated 04.02.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Ratangarh District Churu, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. filed by the petitioners for taking certain documents on record. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Ratangarh District Churu against the respondents for perpetual injunction, specific performance of contract, and for grant of possession. On 21.07.2008, the petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC before the learned Judge for taking certain documents on record. On 18.03.2009 the respondents filed the Floating Frame reply to the application stating therein that the suit had been filed eleven years ago. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge dismissed the said application, by order dated 04.02.2011. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the reason why these documents which were lying with the petitioners could not be produced for eleven long years is that their counsel advised them that the same would be produced prior to the framing of issues. However, subsequently the law has been amended. The petitioners did not know that the law had changed. Therefore, the petitioners should be permitted to submit the documents. In order to support his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Savitri Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2008 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217]. 4. On the other hand, Mr. A.R. Godara, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that ignorance of law is no excuse. The petitioners would have know that they are supposed to submit these documents along with their pleadings. Yet, inordinate delay of eleven long years, they maintained a studied silence about the documents. They are, thus, trying to produce the documents only in order to further delay the trial. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. It is, indeed, a settled position of law that ignorance of law is neither a genuine, nor a justifiable excuse. The petitioners would have certainly known that they are supposed to place the documents on which they wish to rely upon in order to establish their stand. But, despite this fact, they sat on the documents for eleven long years. It is, indeed, a settled position of law that ignorance of law is neither a genuine, nor a justifiable excuse. The petitioners would have certainly known that they are supposed to place the documents on which they wish to rely upon in order to establish their stand. But, despite this fact, they sat on the documents for eleven long years. Therefore, they cannot be permitted to submit these documents at this belated stage. The reason given by the learned Judge is certainly in accordance with law. 7. In the case of Savitri Devi (supra), the plaintiff had explained the delay in producing the documents. However, in the present case, the petitioner has failed to give any cogent reasons for non-production of the documents except that he is ignorant of law. Thus, the case of Savitri Devi (supra) is inapplicable to the present case.Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the petition; the petition is, hereby, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******