JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 3.4.2013 passed by Addl. District Judge No.3, Sikar, whereby the learned judge has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Order 13, Rule 4 CPC, the petitioner has approached this court. 2. Mr. Jai Raj Tantia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that there was a judgment which was passed in his favour on 15.10.2004. While submitting his rebuttal evidence, he had pointed out that judgment. However, the respondents did not bother even to cross-examine the witnesses about the said judgment as the said judgment was an admitted document. Since the said judgment was an admitted document, on 19.2.2013 the petitioner moved an application under Order 13, Rule 4 CPC, and submitted that the said judgment and decree should be marked as document. However, by order dated 3.4.2013 the learned judge has dismissed the said application. Relying on the case of Lal Chand v. Thakur Das & Others [1990 (2) RLR 355] the learned counsel has further pleaded that in case the document is an admitted one, the trial court has no other option but to mark the said document as an exhibit. Lastly, that there was no inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in moving his application under Order 13, Rule 4 CPC. Hence, the learned judge was unjustified in dismissing the application on the ground of delay. 3. On the other hand Mr. Anil Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that from 15.10.2004 the petitioner was well aware of the existence of this judgment which allegedly was in his favour. Yet, he did not choose to produce the said judgment, and to get it marked during the course of the trial. It is only when the trial was coming to a close, and after an inordinate delay of nine years, the petitioner filed an application for getting the said judgment marked as an exhibit. Therefore, the learned judge was certainly justified in concluding that it is merely a cleaver ploy by the petitioner for prolonging the trial. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order. 5. Therefore, the learned judge was certainly justified in concluding that it is merely a cleaver ploy by the petitioner for prolonging the trial. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order. 5. Order 13, Rule 4 CPC is as under:- Endorsements on documents admitted in evidence.-(1) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-rule, there shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit the following particulars, namely: (a) the number and title of the suit, (b) the name of the person producing the documents, (c) the date on which it was produced, and (d) a statement of its having been so admitted, and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the judge. (2) Where a document so admitted is an entry in a book, account or record, and a copy thereof has been substituted for the original under the next following rule, the particulars aforesaid shall be endorsed on the copy and the endorsement thereon shall be signed or initialled by the Judge. 6. The said provision does not cast a mandatory obligation on the court to mark as an exhibit an admitted document. The court in its wisdom would be free to use its discretion, and to decide whether a document should, indeed, be marked as a document or not. Since the conduct of the party is a relevant factor to be taken into account, the court would also be free to see the timing when the document is submitted, and a request is being made for marking the document as an exhibit. Although the learned counsel has pleaded that in interest of justice, the document should have been marked as an exhibit, but the phrase "in interest of justice" cannot be interpreted so liberally as to mean that the court should endlessly wait for a prayer to be made for marking a document as exhibit. Needless to say, the court cannot be left at the mercy of the litigant. In fact the burden is upon the litigant to be vigilant about his rights and interest. Therefore, the petitioner was duty bound to get the judgment dated 15.10.2004 marked as an exhibit as soon as possible during the course of the trial. 7. Needless to say, the court cannot be left at the mercy of the litigant. In fact the burden is upon the litigant to be vigilant about his rights and interest. Therefore, the petitioner was duty bound to get the judgment dated 15.10.2004 marked as an exhibit as soon as possible during the course of the trial. 7. From 15.10.2004 till filing of the application on 19.2.2013 i.e. for almost nine long years the petitioner sat over the document, and did not bring it to the notice of the court. There is not even an iota of explanation offered by the petitioner for his studied silence of nine years. Even when the document was mentioned in the rebuttal evidence, even then the petitioner failed to get the document exhibited. Merely because the respondents have not cross-examined the petitioner, merely because the document has not been challenged would not imply that the court is duty bound to mark the said document as an exhibit. 8. The case of Lal Chand (supra) cannot be said to have established a universal principle of law. Therefore, the learned judge was certainly justified in concluding that it was a delay tactic being adopted by the petitioner for prolonging the trial. Hence, the learned judge was certainly justified in dismissing the application filed under Order 13, Rule 4 CPC. 9. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. This petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application, too, stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******