ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 8.2.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC has been rejected. 2. The respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for enhanced rent, eviction, possession and mesne profit against the petitioner. The suit was resisted by the petitioner by filing written statement. 3. The trial court framed as many as 09 issues by order dated 19.10.2011. Where after, the petitioner filed applications dated 9.5.2012, 1.7.2015, 23.9.2015, 21.11.2015 & 16.12.2015 under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC seeking to produce documents, which applications were allowed by the trial court for expeditious disposal of the case and though costs were imposed, the same were not paid. Where after, the present application, which was filed on 18.11.2015 seeking to produce further documents come up before the trial court; the trial court after hearing the parties, noticing that in the past five applications of similar nature had already been accepted on payment of cost, cost had not been paid and that the documents were not relevant and was only an attempt to delay the proceedings, rejected the application. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court without discussing the relevance of the documents has by merely making off-the-cuff remark rejected the application, which order cannot be sustained. It was submitted that the trial court should have permitted production of the documents, which were relevant and in fact, some documents were in furtherance of the documents already taken on record while allowing earlier applications and therefore, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 6. From a bare perusal of the order passed by the trial court, it appears that after the issues were framed on 19.10.2011, the petitioner went on a filing spree of applications under Order 8, Rule 1A CPC and filed as much as six applications, while the court allowed five applications, in the interest of early disposal of the proceedings by imposing cost, the sixth application has been rejected by the trial court. 7. 7. The provisions of Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC or Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC cannot be used / misused by way of a continuous unabated exercise whereby the party would keep on filing documents after documents as and when the same are found/comes in possession of the party. The case-in-hand presents above situation where six applications have been filed and therefore, the said exercise on part of the petitioner could not have been continuanced by the trial court and the trial court was justified in rejecting the application. 8. Interestingly, the application was filed based on acquisition of certain documents by the petitioner based on production of another set of documents by earlier application. The very fact that the petitioner had filed earlier application and was in possession of the basic document, it was incumbent on the petitioner to obtain the documents which were subject matter of the present application and produce the same along with the basic document. 9. As already observed herein-before, the filing of documents cannot be an on going continuous exercise i.e. as and when the party feels like filing the documents, the same could be filed. 10. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.