JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17-8- 2012 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the trial court'), whereby an application filed by the petitioner defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') one under Order 8, Rule 1A Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.2-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for preemption in respect of a room on ground floor falling in plot No.169, Krishna Bhawan, Banasthali marg, Sansar Chandra Road Jaipur. On service of summons, written statement came to be filed. In terms of Order 8, Rule 1A Civil Procedure Code, it was a duty of the defendant to produce documents, upon which the defence along with written statement. On the pleadings of parties, issues came to be framed in the year 2005. The plaintiff thereafter led evidence and closed his evidence in the month of April, 2012, and the case was set up for defence evidence. At this stage, the defendant moved an application under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) Civil Procedure Code seeking to place on record certain photographs and DVD of disputed property intending to establish that the suit property was commercial in nature. 3. The trial court by the impugned order dated 17-8-2012 dismissed the said application, inter alia finding that photographs sought to be submitted belatedly without any good cause under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) Civil Procedure Code and in any event there was no material before the court to establish with any modicum of certainty that the photographs in issue pertained to the disputed property. The trial court further recorded that there was nothing on record to even establish the time when said photographs were taken and the identity of the person who took photographs. On the basis of such findings, the learned trial court thought it fit to not exercise its discretion to grant leave to defendant to bring in additional documents on record of the suit at the stage of defendant's evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Madan Lal v. Rent Tribunal Alwar [2006(3) RLW 2498] . Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of Division Bench of this court in case of Santveer Singh v. Addl. Civil Judge, Hanumangarh [2004 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 675] . 5. Mr. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Madan Lal v. Rent Tribunal Alwar [2006(3) RLW 2498] . Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of Division Bench of this court in case of Santveer Singh v. Addl. Civil Judge, Hanumangarh [2004 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 675] . 5. Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiff would submit that dominant intent of the Legislature in incorporating Rule 1A Order 8 Civil Procedure Code by way of an amendment was to ensure that suits proceeded expeditiously. He submits that consequently taking of documents on record, subsequent to filing of plaint and written statement under rule (3) of Order 8, Rule 1A is in the nature of an exception to be resorted to only for good reasons to the satisfaction of the trial court entailing grant of its leave for the purpose. Counsel submits that grant of leave by the court is an exercise of discretion, which can only be exercised if attendant circumstances justifying the delay be established and further if the documents are of unquestionable authenticity. Counsel submits that the photographs were not accompanied by their negatives, nor were they signed by the photographer who took the photographs. Counsel submits that to hold otherwise and routinely grant permission would be destruction of the dominant intention of the legislature in legislating Order 8, Rule 1A Civil Procedure Code. Counsel submits that not an iota of reason was advanced by the defendant in his application under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) Civil Procedure Code as to why photographs purportedly relating to the suit property were not filed along with the written statement. Counsel submits that aside of aforesaid, the plaintiff's evidence has already been closed in the suit before the trial court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record of writ petition. 7. In my considered opinion, the leave of the court under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) Civil Procedure Code is discretionary and the discretion has to be exercised on the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case. Routine grant of leave under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) Civil Procedure Code is not countenanced in law. 7. In my considered opinion, the leave of the court under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) Civil Procedure Code is discretionary and the discretion has to be exercised on the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case. Routine grant of leave under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) Civil Procedure Code is not countenanced in law. In my considered opinion, in the facts of the case no reason was/ is set up by the defendant for belated filing the photographs in the year 2012 pertaining to the disputed property for which the suit was filed in the year 2005. Aside of aforesaid, as found by the trial court and submitted by counsel for the plaintiff there was no material before the trial court to hold that the photographs in issue related to property in dispute. Neither date nor time of taking of the said photographs for that matter or the name and signature of the Photographer was appended on the photographs. It is also not disputed that said photographs were sought to be produced subsequent to closure of evidence of plaintiff and at the time of commencement of evidence of the defendant. The dominant purpose of Order 8, Rule 1A Civil Procedure Code and requirement of filing of document along with the pleadings of parties is to expedite adjudication of the dispute and have a crystalised dispute before the trial court at the earliest and cannot be overlooked by taking an overtly liberal view of the provision of Order 8, Rule 1A (3) Civil Procedure Code. The discretion of the trial court as evident in the impugned order cannot be overturned by this court merely being the superior court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Subodh Kumar Gupta v. Alpana Gupta [ (2005) 11 SCC 578 ] has held that discretionary orders of the trial court in the course of proceeding of a case ought not to be interfered with where such orders are supported by good grounds and reasons. This situation obtains in the present case. 8. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are inapposite and do not attract to the facts of the instant case. Consequently, I find no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed. *******