JUDGMENT 1. - In response to the public notice issued by this Court inviting litigants to come and argue their case, as the learned members of the Bar are on strike, Mr. Surendra Agarwal, the petitioner No.1/3, and Mr. Ashok Kumar, son of the respondent No.2 have appeared before this Court. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 11.10.2012, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) West, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate had rejected an application filed under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC submitted by the petitioner for taking a document on record. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 7.5.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby he has dismissed a review application filed by the petitioners. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioners had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant. According to the petitioner, there is a common staircase located between shop No. B-9 and B-10. The petitioners do not have access to upper storey of the building except by using the common staircase. Although, they were using the said staircase in order to reach the upper storey, suddenly on 7.11.2004, the respondent-defendant prevented them from using the said staircase. Therefore, the suit for permanent injunction.Mr. Surendra Agarwal, has pleaded that prior to the temporary injunction application, the petitioners had submitted a document dated 27.7.2007, which deals with Shop No. B-9 which is owned by the petitioners. The said document was relied upon by the learned trial court while deciding the application for temporary injunction. However, subsequently, when the petitioners tried to bring the said document on record by filing an application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC, by order dated 11.10.2012, the said application was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners had also filed a review application for reviewing the order dated 11.10.2012. However, by order dated 7.5.2013, the review application has also been dismissed. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. Surendra also contended that since the learned Magistrate had considered the said document while deciding the application for temporary injunction, he was duty bound to take the said document on record. Moreover, the said document clearly shows that the petitioners had the right to use the staircase in dispute. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has committed an illegality in rejecting the application by order dated 11.10.2012. Thus, the said order deserves to be set aside. Moreover, the said document clearly shows that the petitioners had the right to use the staircase in dispute. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has committed an illegality in rejecting the application by order dated 11.10.2012. Thus, the said order deserves to be set aside. Moreover, the learned has not given any cogent reason for rejecting the review application by order dated 7.5.2013. Therefore, the said order also deserves to be interfered with. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Kumar, son of respondent No.2, has contended that the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for rejecting application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC. The document in question does not relate to the respondent-defendant, as the respondent-defendant is not even a party to the said document. Thus, the said document cannot be imposed upon him. Moreover, merely because the said document mentions the existence of the staircase in dispute, it does not throw any light on the dispute between the parties. Since the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons, according to Mr. Ashok Kumar, the order dated 11.10.2012 should not be interfered with. Similarly, Mr. Ashok Kumar, has also supported the impugned order dated 7.5.2013. 6. Heard Mr. Surendra Agarwal, and Mr. Ashok Kumar, and perused the impugned order. 7. A bare perusal of the document dated 27.7.2007 clearly reveals that the document is about shop No. B-9 and has nothing to do with Shop No.B-10. Moreover, the document talks about title vested in between the parties with regard to Shop No.B-9. Undoubtedly, the respondent defendant is not a party to the said agreement. Therefore, the privity of contract does not lie against the respondent. Hence, the said document cannot be read against the respondent-defendant. Thus, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in concluding that even if the staircase in dispute has been mentioned in the agreement dated 27.7.2007, the said agreement cannot be read against the respondent. 8. Secondly, unquestionably the document has been entered into between the petitioners after the civil suit was filed. Although, the document was within their possession, it was not submitted before the trial court immediately. It has been submitted after an inordinate delay. Thus, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC. 9. Secondly, unquestionably the document has been entered into between the petitioners after the civil suit was filed. Although, the document was within their possession, it was not submitted before the trial court immediately. It has been submitted after an inordinate delay. Thus, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC. 9. The learned Magistrate has also given cogent reasons for rejecting the review application inter alia on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 11.10.2012 that could possibly be corrected by invoking the power of review. Hence, the learned Magistrate has given equally valid and legal reasons for rejecting the application for review. 10. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. 11. The Registry is directed to return the record immediately back to the concerned trial court.Petition dismissed. *******