JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-original defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 27.6.07 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Jaipur City (West), Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 197/06, whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner for taking the documents on record under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No.2-plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction and for arrears of rent against the petitioner-defendant before the trial court. The said suit was resisted by the petitioner-defendant by filing the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. The trial court after framing the issues proceeded further with the trial and both the parties led their respective evidence. The petitioner-defendant thereafter submitted an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to produce certain documents mentioned therein. The trial court rejected the said application vide the impugned order dated 27.4.07. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Anoop Dhand for the petitioner submitted that the documents sought to be produced are very material and relevant to prove the defence of the petitioner that the rent for the relevant period was paid up by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner would not lead any evidence nor recall any witnesses already examined to formally prove the documents, however the same may be permitted to be taken on record in the interest of justice. Relying upon the judgment of this court in case of Santveer Singh v. Addl. Civil Judge, Hanumangarh & Anr. 2004(3) WLC (Raj.) 397, he has submitted that the procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct course of substantial justice. 4. However, the learned counsel Mr. A.K. Pareek for the respondent No.2-original plaintiff vehemently submitted that the petitioner has not mentioned any reason for the late production of the documents in question and, therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. Mr. 4. However, the learned counsel Mr. A.K. Pareek for the respondent No.2-original plaintiff vehemently submitted that the petitioner has not mentioned any reason for the late production of the documents in question and, therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. Mr. Pareek also submitted that the documents ought to be produced have no reference in the written statement filed by the petitioner and the witnesses examined by the petitioner have also not stated anything about the said documents and, therefore, the said documents should not be permitted to be produced at the fag end of the suit, which otherwise would prejudice the case of the respondent-plaintiff. The learned counsel Mr. Pareek has relied upon the judgment of this court in case of Ramji Lal v. Bhoop Singh 1993 (3) WLC (Raj.) 260 in support of his submission. 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant provision of Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of Civil Procedure Code which reads as under :- "O.VIII, R.1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him- (1)....... (2)....... (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. 4......." 6. It cannot be gainsaid that the that the parties are required to produce the original documents, the copies of which have been filed alongwith the plaint or the written statement, before the settlement of the issues as per Order 13 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. It is true that as per the provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 1A, the documents, which ought to be produced by the defendants but not produced could be produced with the leave of the court, however in the instant case the petitioner-defendant has not stated any reason as to why the said documents were not produced earlier by him. Not only that, there is no contention raised by the defendant in the written statement nor the concerned witnesses examined by the petitioner have stated about the said documents. Not only that, there is no contention raised by the defendant in the written statement nor the concerned witnesses examined by the petitioner have stated about the said documents. Under the circumstances, in absence of any cogent reason, and in absence of any foundation laid by the petitioner either in the written statement or in the oral evidence, the trial court has rightly rejected the application of the petition to produce the documents at such a belated stage. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, such a conduct on the part of the petitioner does not appear to be bonafide one and the application for production of documents at the fag end of the suit appears to have been filed only with a view to prolong the proceedings. It is true that the procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct course of substantial justice, as observed in the decision of this court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in absence of any good cause or cogent reason pointed out by the petitioner in not producing the said documents earlier, the trial court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. The impugned order passed by the trial court being just and proper, this court exercising limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere with the same. 7. Hence, the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.