JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging validity of order dated 17.8.2004 passed by Additional Sessions judge, Bhilwara in Civil Appeal No. 19/2003 whereby, an application filed under Order 16, Rule 6 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was dismissed by the trial Court. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the year 2002, an application was filed by the petitioner before Commercial Taxes Department to ascertain the fact that plaintiff Rajendra Kumar is pursuing any business or not. Then after obtaining the information, an application was moved before the trial Court under Order 16, Rule 6 C.P.C. for summoning those documents. 3. The trial Court rejected the application in very cursory manner without considering the fact that plaintiff is not disputing the said fact which is narrated in the application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned is patently illegal and not in consonance with law because at any stage, for summoning relevant documents, application under Order 16, Rule 16 (sic 6) C.P.C. can be filed, therefore, the order of appellate Court may be set aside and trial Court may be directed to summon the documents for which an application was filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent plaintiff submits that no such plea was taken in the written statement before the trial Court and on the basis of pleading the judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court, thereafter, in appeal a new ground was raised by the petitioner for summoning the documents to prove the fact that plaintiff Rajendra Kumar was pursuing any business. The trial Court gave finding in para 3 of the order that such application has been filed only to. delay the decision in appeal, therefore, the trial Court dismissed the application. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court so also admitted the fact of the petitioner that till decision by the trial Court, the fact was not within the knowledge of the petitioner with regard to pursuing business by Rajendra Kumar son of plaintiff. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court so also admitted the fact of the petitioner that till decision by the trial Court, the fact was not within the knowledge of the petitioner with regard to pursuing business by Rajendra Kumar son of plaintiff. it is also very important to observe that in para 3 of the order impugned, the appellate Court observed that no such plea was taken at all before the trial Court or during the arguments and all of sudden at appellate stage, this application has been filed that too at the time of final arguments, therefore, obviously such application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the trial Court because the suit was filed in the year 1991 and the trial Court finally decided the suit vide judgment dated 6.4.2001 and thereafter an application was filed by the petitioner in appeal in the year 2004 and made a prayer for summoning certain documents which were not even pleaded before the trial Court. 8. In view of above, it is obvious that intention of the petitioner to file an application under Order 16, Rule 6 C.P.C. for summoning documents was only to delay the proceedings, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, if law permits, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the pleas in appeal.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******