JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. Heard both the parties at length. It is agreed that the matter may be decided at this stage. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the suit filed by the respondents for cancellation of the adoption deed, issues were framed on 13.12.2013. 3. As per the issues which were framed, the first issue related to whether the petitioner was adopted by the plaintiffs as an adopted son on 28.02.2010 and if not adopted, the registered adoption deed be treated as illegal and void and whether on the particular day of adoption as alleged, no function was conducted for adoption. 4. The second issue framed was whether as per the Jat Community, adoption of 29 years old married person having children is customary and allowed in their society. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.1, husband of the respondent expired and all his last rights relating to funeral etc. as per Hindu rights were performed by the petitioner as a son. In support thereof, the documents have been filed by moving an application under Order 8 Rule (1-A) (3). 5. It is the case of the petitioner that by the impugned order dated 07.04.2016, Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bikaner has rejected his application for taking the said documents on record which were relating to the subsequent event. It is submitted that the documents have relevance for the purpose of deciding the issues as stated herein above and the trial court has committed an error in not taking the said documents on record. 6. In support thereof, counsel for the petitioner has also cited judgments delivered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3906/2006 decided on 14.12.2010 Bajrang Lal v. Uma Shanker wherein in paras 7 & 8 quoted as under:- "7. No doubt, the present suit was filed in the year 1984 and the learned counsel for the plaintiff moved an application in the year 2004. Bare perusal of six documents will show that five documents are certified copies of plaint, written statement, compromise and judgments and one document is original rent note. The trial Court was of the view that these documents are necessary to be taken on record. The trial Court also granted liberty to the defendant to produce any other document in rebuttal. 8. The trial Court was of the view that these documents are necessary to be taken on record. The trial Court also granted liberty to the defendant to produce any other document in rebuttal. 8. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has already protected the interest of defendant by giving liberty to produce the documents in rebuttal. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial Court so as to interfere in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 7. In the matter of Shanti Lal & Anr. v. Kanhaiya Lal @ Krishna Chandra & Anr. Reported AIR 2006 (Raj)126 wherein in Para Nos. 10 & 11 it has been held as under :- 10. Learned trial Court dismissed the application preferred by the defendant-petitioners on various grounds including the ground that defendants did not mention the document now sought to be produced in the list of documents filed under Order 7, Rule 18, CPC. In fact Order 7, Rule 18, CPC is having no application in present controversy as it relates to inadmissibility of document not produced by the plaintiff at the time of presenting plaint. Present one is a case which relates to the document sought to be produced by defendants. The trial Court while rejecting the application preferred by the defendants much relied upon the order dated 14-7-1999 rejecting the application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC. While doing so learned trial Court totally ignored the order dated 26-2-2003 passed by this Court permitting the defendant-petitioners to produce evidence in pursuant to which statements of DW-4 Shri Purshottamlal were recorded. It is true that in accordance with Order 8, Rule 1 (2), CPC the defendant is required to annex the list of documents on which he relies while presenting written statement, however, he may with leave of the Court produce a document in evidence though not entered in the list referred in Order 8, Rule 1 (2) CPC. Order 8, Rule 1 (5), CPC gives a broad discretion to the Court in this regard. Such discretion vested with the Court is required to be exercised judiciously. Order 8, Rule 1 (5), CPC gives a broad discretion to the Court in this regard. Such discretion vested with the Court is required to be exercised judiciously. If the defendant gives good and sufficient reason for not entering the document sought to be produced and called for in the list annexed to the written statement, the Court should grant him leave to do so as the basic criterion to exercise the discretion given to a court is effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 11. In the instant case by an order of this Court defendants were permitted to lead evidence and in pursuant thereto statements of Shri Purshottamlal (DW-4) were recorded. Shri Purshottamlal in his statements gave reference of the document which is a judgment of competent Court. The core issue involved in this suit is with regard to adoption of plaintiff by Bhawanishankar and the document referred by DW-4 is having material bearing to the issue, therefore, the document is important for effective adjudication of the suit. No harm or prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff in event of production of document concerned or by calling certified copy of the same from the office of the Assistant Commissioner as the plaintiffs right for rebuttal is open. 8. In the matter of Shiv Charan Lal Through legal representative v. Lakhan Lal & Ors reported in 2007 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1463 it has been held as under:- "So far as the request of the petitioner to formally take those documents in evidence, such request at his belated stage cannot be accepted more particularly when already one and a half decade has passed since recording of the evidence. At the same time, however, in view of what has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the documents are allowed to be placed on record without being formally proved and exhibited at his risk, in the circumstances, therefore, it is considered appropriate that document shall part of the record with liberty to the defendant also to produce any document in rebuttal thereof. However, this would not effect the right of the parties to address the Court on the question of admissibility, relevance and required in law for the Court to formally consider them at the time of final disposal. However, this would not effect the right of the parties to address the Court on the question of admissibility, relevance and required in law for the Court to formally consider them at the time of final disposal. I need to again clarify that mere placing of these documents on record would not entitle the plaintiff to formally ask for their being exhibited in evidence or for that purpose resummon any of the witnesses. The matter shall be proceeded with for final arguments as it is stated to be stage of proceedings." 9. The ground of rejecting his application on basis of delay was wholly uncalled for as the death of husband of respondent-plaintiff occurred on 29.07.2015 and within six months, he moved an application on 16.12.2015 for taking said documents on record. In support of the same, he relies upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy & Anr. v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy & Ors reported in (1994) 4 SCC 659 wherein it was held as under:- "These documents were not in the possession or custody of the appellants, but they have obtained certified copies from the Revenue Authorities and sought to be produced. It is undoubted that there is a delay in production of the said documents. But the trial court had stated that the application was filed at the stage of arguments, seeking to produce those documents and sought to rely upon the documents. It is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 4 1, Rule 27 CPC the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. When such is the position, when the documents are sought to be produced in the trial court, before the arguments are completed, normally they may be received; an opportunity given to prove them and rebuttal if any and their relevance and effect they may have, be considered in deciding the issues arising in the controversy. Under these circumstances, the trial court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay and to receive the documents. 10. Under these circumstances, the trial court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay and to receive the documents. 10. Per contra, the counsel for the non-petitioner submits that the documents do not have any relevancy to the case and have been rightly not allowed to be taken on record by the trial court. It has been further pointed out that the case was to be heard for final arguments and evidence has already been closed for both the sides and the delay of six months is material in the circumstances. 11. It has been further stated that the core issue in the entire suit is with regard to validity of adoption deed executed illegally and under duress way back as on 09.03.2010 and merely because the petitioner has conducted the last rites of the deceased husband of the plaintiff which according to him were done merely because the petitioner was the near relative of the respondent plaintiff, the same would not be relevant for deciding the issue. 12. The petitioner further has taken this Court to the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1A (3) of the CPC which reads as under:- "[1-A Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.] (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.]" 13. It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid provisions only the relevant documents were required to be taken on record which the defendant may rely upon for the purpose of his defence. It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid provisions only the relevant documents were required to be taken on record which the defendant may rely upon for the purpose of his defence. Since the documents if taken on record, would be unnecessary delaying the entire case as subsequent applications would also be filed for making amendment in written statement etc. It would not be appropriate to take documents on record at this stage when the final arguments are to be heard in the suit. It is also stated the respondent is an old woman and she and her husband both had filed a suit for declaring the adoption deed, which was wholly wrongful and it is the case set up by them that such an adoption deed was never executed by them or by their own free will. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also the order dated 07.04.2016, by which the application of the petitioner was rejected, this Court finds that it does not call for any interference. It is a trite law that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this Court has a limited jurisdiction. The law in this regard has been recently settled in Radhye Shyam v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. 2015 (5) SCC 423 wherein discussing the powers under Article 227 and 226 of the Constitution Of India, the three judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "21. It is true that this Court has laid down that technicalities associated with the prerogative writs in England have no role to play under our constitutional scheme. There is no parallel system of King's Court in India and of all other courts having limited jurisdiction subject to supervision of King's Court. Courts are set up under the Constitution or the laws. All courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of Tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. There are no precedents in India for High Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of Tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. There are no precedents in India for High Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Control of working of subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or revisional powers or power of superintendence under Article 227. Orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or Tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts. While appellate or revisional jurisdiction is regulated by statutes, power of superintendence under Article 227 is constitutional. The expression "inferior court" is not referable to judicial courts, as rightly observed in the referring order in paras 26 and 27 quoted above. 22. The Bench in Surya Dev Rai also observed in para 25 of its judgment that distinction between Articles 226 and 227 stood almost obliterated. In para 24 of the said judgment distinction in the two articles has been noted. In view thereof, observation that scope of Article 226 and 227 was obliterated was not correct as rightly observed by the referring Bench in Para 32 quoted above. We make it clear that though despite the curtailment of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC by Act 46 of 1999, jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 remains unaffected, it has been wrongly assumed in certain quarters that the said jurisdiction has been expanded. Scope of Article 227 has been explained in several decisions including Warym Singh and another v. Amarnath and another, Ouseph Mathai v. M. Abdul Khadir, Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil and Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal. In Shalini Shyam Shetty, this Court observed : "64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. 65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority. 66. We may also observe that in some High Courts there is a tendency of entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 CPC has been curtailed. In our view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed that has not resulted in expanding the High Court's power of superintendence. It is too well known to be reiterated that in exercising its jurisdiction, High Court must follow the regime of law. 67. As a result of frequent interference by the Hon'ble High Court either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution with pending civil and at times criminal cases, the disposal of cases by the civil and criminal courts gets further impeded and thus causing serious problems in the administration of justice. This Court hopes and trusts that in exercising its power either under Article 226 or 227, the Hon'ble High Court will follow the time honored principles discussed above. Those principles have been formulated by this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts as the highest courts of justice within their jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly." 15. In another judgment of three judges Bench reported in Kasturi Bai & Ors. Those principles have been formulated by this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts as the highest courts of justice within their jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly." 15. In another judgment of three judges Bench reported in Kasturi Bai & Ors. v. Anguri Choudhary 2003 (3) SCC 225 , the Court has reiterated that a cautious and judicial approach should be adopted while interfering in judicial orders passed by the Civil court under CPC and this Court under Article 227 has a limited jurisdiction. In Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2003 (3) SCC 524 . 16. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I find that in the present case the application itself is wholly misconceived. The documents relating to having conducted funeral and last rites of the deceased-plaintiff would be of no relevance with regard to the issue No. 1 and the application for taking documents on record under Order 8 Rule (1-A) (3), when the final arguments are only required to be advanced, is nothing but to delay the further proceedings. In view of the limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as laid down in the aforesaid judgments and considering that the matter is hanging for a quite long time, now in civil court, no interference is warranted and the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.