JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing note appended by the trial Court on 16.10.2006 while recording cross-examination of the plaintiff and it is prayed that the said note may be quashed and trial Court may be directed to allow the petitioner-defendant to prove the document by adducing evidence. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the suit for specific performance and recovery of damages and permanent injunction, statement of plaintiff-respondents were recorded. During the cross-examination the defendants filed an agreement which was executed between plaintiff Shanti Lal and defendant Hitendra Puri and learned trial Court while observing that the said document has only been produced for cross-examination of the plaintiff, therefore, the defendants will not produce any evidence thereon. 3. The contention of the petitioners' counsel is that before the trial Court it was submitted that this document should have been taken on record to prove the tenancy between the parties but the trial Court did not allow the, defendant-petitioners to prove the said document, therefore, the said note may be quashed and trial Court may be directed to allow the petitioners to prove the said document. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once the document is exhibited, then, in view of the provisions of Order 9(3) of the Civil Procedure Code the said document which ought to have been produced under this rule but has not been so produced shall not without leave of the Court be received in evidence on his behalf at the time of hearing of the case, but, in this case, when the document has been exhibited, then, the trial Court ought to have granted opportunity to the defendant-petitioners to prove the said document. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in view of Order 8 Rule 1(a), C.P.C. it is the duty of the defendant to produce the document upon which relief is claimed or he relies on that at the time of filing written-statement before the Court; but, in this case, the document in question was not filed along with the written-statement, therefore, no error has been committed in view of Order 8 Rule 1-A (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that as per the mandatory provisions of Order 8 Rule 1-A, C.P.C. the document upon which the defendant relies is required to be filed along with the written-statement but, admittedly, the said document was not filed at the time of filing the written-statement and produced at the time of cross-examination. Therefore, there is no error in the note put by the trial Court when the document was produced at the time of cross-examination. Further, if the defendant-petitioners relied upon the document in question in their written-statement the same was to be produced along with the written-statement as per Order 8 Rule 1-A, C.P.C., but the said document was not produced along with the written-statement. Therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error while recording evidence of the respondents when the documents was produced. As per Rule 1-A(3) of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the defendant wants to prove the said document, then, he is free to file application before the trial Court. 7. Therefore, without entering into merit, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file application before the trial Court for taking the document in question on record. Upon filing such application, it is expected from the trial Court that the application will be decided in accordance with law objectively.Petition disposed of. *******