JUDGMENT 1. - This defendant's petition has been filed aggrieved of the order dated 09.08.2011, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 1, Sikar, dismissing an application under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC for taking on record the trace map and Jamabandi of the khatedari land of the defendants-petitioners (hereinafter 'the defendants'). 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants praying therein that their easementary rights through the defendants' land be declared and it be directed that the entries accordingly be made in the revenue records. On service of notice on the suit, the defendants filed their written statement of denial and submitted documents in defence therewith under Order 8, Rule 1A CPC. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck issues. The plaintiffs' evidence was thereupon taken and the plaintiffs' witnesses were cross-examined. The cross-examination was completed on 08.03.2011 after several opportunities had been taken by the counsel for the defendants for the purpose. Thereafter only on 19.04.2011 the defendants filed an application under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC stating that they be allowed to bring on record two documents one being the trace map and the other Jamabandi of their khatedari land to establish that there was no right of way (Rasta) through their khatedari land in the revenue records. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. On consideration of the matter, the learned trial court vide its order dated 09.08.2011 dismissed the application. Hence this petition. 3. Heard the counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned order dated 09.08.2011, passed by this trial court. 4. The trial court has held that it was evident that the defendants had access to the trace map and Jamabandi sought to be belatedly filed before the trial court effective 12.11.2009 and yet the said documents were sought to be brought on record belatedly under the application under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC filed on 19.04.2011 without any adequate explanation as to why the defendants had not brought the said documents on record before the trial court immediately on obtaining them. Taking the view that the belated filing of the documents as sought under the application under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC was wholly without good cause and belated and that in the event the application were allowed and the documents taken on record subsequent to the closure of the plaintiffs' evidence, it would cause great prejudice to the plaintiffs, the trial court dismissed the said application. Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC indeed confers the discretion on the trial court to allow belated filing of the documents. But the discretion of the trial court no doubt has to be exercised judicially and for good reason. A perusal of the impugned order dated 09.08.2011 indicates that the trial court has taken into consideration the overall facts of the case and refused to exercise its discretion and grant relief to the defendants by resort to the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases has held that where the discretionary orders of the trial court are well considered and reasoned, there should be no interference therewith by the superior courts. As counsel for the defendants has not been able to make out any good reason which the trial court overlooked in denying the defendants the benefit of discretion conferred on it under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC, I see no ground to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is without force and the same is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******