ORDER: Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and State. 2. Learned Court of Sub-Judge VIth, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 30/1997 refused to accord leave to the plaintiff (petitioners herein) to file documents by the impugned order dated 25th March, 2015 (Annexure 7). Petitioners also sought review of the said order through an application dated 13th May, 2015, which also been rejected on 28th September, 2015 vide Annexure 10. The suit is for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of schedule property and for a decree of declaration that order passed in S.A.R Case No. 103 of 1986-87 and 88/85 as void and without jurisdiction and not binding on plaintiff. It is not in dispute that the list of documents which the petitioners seek to adduce as evidence now after closure of plaintiff and defendant witnesses were not enclosed to the plaint in the list of documents. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that these are certified copy of surrender deed which been obtained under RTI and other such documents referred to at Annexure 5 being certified copy of F.I.R being Case no. 318/90, original rent receipt no. 84/3 of plot no. 695 issued by Circle Officer, Ranchi, original rent receipt no. 84/5 of plot no. 696, original municipal receipt of Ranchi Municipal Corporation of Ward no. 11/25, House no. 680, certified copy of demand of house no. 944 Ward no. 3 of the year 1971-72, original copy of letter no. 452/(ii) dated 16th February, 2013 issued by Circle Officer, Ranchi under RTI and other such letter of December, 2012. It is also submitted that denial of opportunity to adduce these documents even at the stage of argument would seriously prejudice the case of the plaintiff-petitioners. Therefore, even by imposing some cost, learned trial court may be directed to allow the petitioners to bring on record these documents in support of its case. 4. I have considered the submission of the petitioners and perused the impugned order as well. The suit as is obvious is of 1997. It is also true that the plaintiff had failed to enclose the aforesaid documents in the list along with its plaint at the relevant point of time. 4. I have considered the submission of the petitioners and perused the impugned order as well. The suit as is obvious is of 1997. It is also true that the plaintiff had failed to enclose the aforesaid documents in the list along with its plaint at the relevant point of time. It is also true that during the entire course of examination of plaintiff's witness no effort was made on the part of the plaintiff to bring on record these documents even though they are said to be formal in nature. Learned Trial Court considered the plea of the petitioner and found no reason to accord leave to the plaintiff in terms of Order 7, Rule 14 (3) to bring on record those documents as in the opinion of learned trial court it amounts to delaying the adjudication of suit which is at the stage of final argument after closure of both plaintiff and defendant's witness. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in exercise of power by learned court below in the facts and circumstances of this case to warrant interference at the stage of final arguments in a suit pending since 1997. All the documents referred herein above at Annexure 5 except two are of a much prior date than institution of the suit in 1997. There are definite laches on the part of the plaintiff which cannot be over come by such resort at almost fag end of proceeding. Therefore, interference is refused. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.