JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed seeking to question the order dated 10.12.2012 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara whereby an application filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC has been allowed and they have been permitted to produce document on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents No. 1 to 7 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of sale deed dated 10.10.2008 relating to immovable property situated at Village Biliya Kallan, Tehsil and District Bhilwara. The respondents No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and disputed the averments made in the plaint. 3. After framing the issues, the plaintiffs led their evidence and the matter was fixed for defendants' evidence. At this stage, an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC was filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2. It was inter-alia stated that the plaintiffs have claimed the property as ancestral and have questioned the sale executed by Smt. Sangari. It was stated that husband of plaintiff Smt. Deu, Shri Ganesh S/o Shri Gopi Gurjar got sale of the land comprised in Araji No. 495, 496, 497 and 1220, 1210 on 15.5.1988 from the said Smt. Sangari and got the same mutated in his name and name of Shri Ganesh S/o Shri Gopi Gurjar is entered in the Jamabandi. The certified copy of Jamabandi could not be filed along with the reply earlier as the said fact came to the notice of the defendants after filing of the written statement. The defendants are illiterate and defendant Smt. Gulabi is quite old, therefore, defendants wanted to exhibit the said document in their evidence. The basis on which, Smt. Deu has filed a suit, the said basis has already been used by her earlier, which fact has been suppressed in the plaint and, therefore, the said document was necessary to be brought on record. The applicants came to know about the said fact on 20.11.2012 and immediately thereafter certified copy has been obtained and is being produced. 4. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing reply to the said application. The applicants came to know about the said fact on 20.11.2012 and immediately thereafter certified copy has been obtained and is being produced. 4. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing reply to the said application. It was inter-alia submitted that the said facts have not been mentioned in the written statement and the applicants are not entitled to file the said document at this late stage. The averments were also denied on merits. 5. The learned trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the document related to the disputed land and so far as the question of delay is concerned, the same can be compensated by cost and if the plaintiffs also want to file certain documents in rebuttal, they are also free to do so and ultimately, allowed the application as noticed herein-before. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material placed on record. 7. It was strenuously submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no reference of the said document / facts was made in the written statement and the document was produced after completion of the evidence of the plaintiffs and no explanation for delay was indicated in the application and, therefore, the learned trial court was clearly in error in permitting the application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Act and the same deserves to be set-aside. 8. The learned counsel placed reliance on 2007-2008 DNJ (Raj.) Suppl. 409, Padam Kumar Jain & Anr. v. Gyan Chand Jain & Ors. and AIR 1990 Raj. 20 , Jagjit Cotton Textiles Mills Limited v. UOI & Ors. .This Court while deciding the case of Padam Kumar Jain (supra) inter-alia held as under:- "5. Whether or not in a particular case, documents sought to be placed on record by way of rebuttal or otherwise, should be taken on record, would always depend upon their nature, their relevancy to the controversy involved in the matter as also the stage when such documents are sought to be placed on record." In the present case the document which is a Jamabandi is relevant to the controversy involves. 9. The case of Jagjit Cotton Textiles Mills Limited (supra) has no relevance as the said judgment was in the context of Order 13 Rule 2 CPC as it existed then. 9. The case of Jagjit Cotton Textiles Mills Limited (supra) has no relevance as the said judgment was in the context of Order 13 Rule 2 CPC as it existed then. The requirement of Order 13 Rule 2 CPC was that the party producing document at late stage was required to show 'good cause to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof'. However, the requirement under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) is that the document now cannot be produced 'without the leave of the court'. 10. In the opinion of this Court, if reasons for belated production of document are explained, the Court may have to lien in favour of receiving the documents since it is the fundamental principle that the parties should be permitted to led in all possible evidence which are relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the matters in controversy before the Court. Throwing the evidence on technical ground and preventing a party producing the evidence, unless it is a deliberate attempt to delay the matters, normally cannot be permitted. 11. In the present case, the respondents in their application clearly gave out that they were not aware of the said fact at the time of filing of the written statement and even gave out the date when it came to their notice. The document itself is a certified copy of the Jamabandi, the existence of which has not been denied by the petitioners in their reply to the application. So far as the argument relating to merit of the submission made by the respondents in their application is concerned, the same is required to be adjudicated in the trial and the trial court could not have examined the said issue at the stage of deciding the said application. 12. It is true that the order passed by the learned trial court is not elaborate enough as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but then that cannot be a sufficient ground to interfere in otherwise just and proper order, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. In view thereof, the order passed by the learned trial court is eminently just and proper and there is no substance in the writ petition and, therefore, the same is dismissed.No costs.Petition dismissed. *******