JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.12.13 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 63/10, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioners seeking production of documents under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) of CPC. 2. The respondent No.2-plaintiff, who happens to be the mother of the petitioner No.2 and mother-in-law of the petitioner NO.1 has filed the suit before the trial court seeking declaration that the sale-deed and power of attorney in question allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.2 is null and void and for the permanent injunction. The said suit has been resisted by the petitioners-defendants by filing their written statement. The trial court has framed the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. It appears that during the course of the evidence being led by the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioners-defendants submitted an application for production of certain documents namely the copies of power of attorneys and the sale-deeds in respect of other properties, under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) of CPC. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order. 3. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the documents in question are very relevant for the purpose of proving defence of the petitioners. According to him the said documents were not in possession of the petitioners and, therefore, could not be produced at the relevant time alongwith the written statement. 4. However, the learned counsel Mr. Gaurav Sharma for the respondent-plaintiff has vehemently submitted that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners being not relevant, the trial court has rightly dismissed the application, which order should not be interfered with. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that the documents, sought to be produced, were not produced by the petitioners at the relevant time of filing the written statement. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that the documents, sought to be produced, were not produced by the petitioners at the relevant time of filing the written statement. However, considering relevancy of the documents and the stage of the suit, the court is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-plaintiff and that the respondent-plaintiff would have ample opportunity to challenge the said documents, if they are permitted to be produced. Hence, without examining the issue of admissibility of the said documents, the same are permitted to be produced subject to payment of cost. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The petitioners are permitted to produce the documents as prayed for subject to payment of cost of Rs. 7,000/- to be deposited in the trial court, which shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent No.2. The petition stands allowed accordingly.Petition allowed. *******