JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 18.9.2012 (Annex.-5) passed by the Civil judge (Jr. Dn.), Sirohi in Civil Suit No. 36/2004, whereby, three applications filed by the petitioner, one under Order 19 Rule 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C., another tinder Order 16 Rule 4 read with Section 151, C.P.C. and, the third under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151, C.P.C. were dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-, ? 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively. 2. In this writ petition, however, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order to the extent of challenge to the validity of rejection of application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151, C.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents filed along with the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3), C.P.C. are very relevant to adjudicate the matter but the learned trial Court rejected the application solely on the ground of delay which is not proper, therefore, this writ petition may be allowed and documents in question may be ordered to be taken on record. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the order impugned. It emerges from perusal of the order that the suit is pending since the year 2004 and, after completion of the trial, the matter was fixed for final hearing in the month of August 2012. After taking some dates, three applications were filed by the petitioner at the time of final arguments and all the three applications were rejected by the trial Court on the ground of delay. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is challenging the order made upon the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3), C.P.C. and not challenging the other orders made upon the other two applications. The fact however remains that after eight years of pendency of suit, when the matter was fixed for final disposal the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3), C.P.C. was filed and prayer was made to take the order dated 20.12.2011 on record which is said to be issued by the office for preparing the photo state copy. The fact however remains that after eight years of pendency of suit, when the matter was fixed for final disposal the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3), C.P.C. was filed and prayer was made to take the order dated 20.12.2011 on record which is said to be issued by the office for preparing the photo state copy. In my opinion, first of all, the document for which application is filed is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy of the suit for permanent injunction and, secondly, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application because it has been filed at the time of final disposal. 6. It is true that as per some adjudications made by this Court, application for taking documents on record can be filed at any stage; but, at the same time, it is to be borne in mind that the said document sought to be taken on record must be relevant for adjudicating the controversy. Here, in this case, it is abundantly clear from perusal of application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3), C.P.C. that the document in question is not relevant for adjudicating the suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. 7. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. It is expected from the trial Court that the suit will be decided expeditiously.Petition dismissed. *******