ORDER: Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 20.04.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner purportedly under Order 11, Rule 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been rejected. 2. The respondent filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profit against the petitioner; during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner deposited certain amount in the bank account of the respondent; an application was earlier filed under Order 11, Rule 14 C.P.C. for taking on record the receipt of depositing the amount for the period 01.07.2005 to 31.12.2012, which application was accepted by the trial court on 04.08.2012 and permission was granted to exhibit the said document; where after, it appears that the petitioner led his evidence between the period 13.10.2011 to 29.02.2016, however, the said receipt, which was ordered to be taken on record by order dated 04.08.2012 was not marked as exhibit and it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when an application was filed seeking to mark the said receipt as exhibit, the same was rejected on 16.11.2013, against which, writ petition filed by the petitioner is pending consideration. 3. After the evidence was closed on 29.03.2016, present application again under Order 11, Rule 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed on 29.03.2016, inter alia, making a prayer for marking the receipt dated 29.03.2012 as exhibit and also seeking permission to produce the eleven receipts pertaining to the period upto 31.07.2016 and for marking them as exhibits. The application was opposed by the plaintiff and the trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to lead evidence over a period of four and a half years, during which, the petitioner did not exhibit the said documents and no reason has been assigned for not doing so and, consequently, rejected the application. 4. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court committed error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the documents are already on record and the same have implication regarding the payment of rent/mesne profit if ultimately the decree is passed by the trial court and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside and petitioner may be permitted to produce the said document and mark the same as exhibits. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 6. It would be appropriate to reproduce the application, which has been filed by the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, the same reads as under:- ^^izkFkZuk i= vkns'k 11 fu;e 14 lifBr /kkjk 151 lh0ih0lh0 okLrs oknh ds fdjk;s dh cSad jlhns jsdMZ ij ysus gsrqA egksn; th] fuosnu izfroknh dk fuEu izdkj gS& 1- fd izfroknh us oknh }kjk fnukad&28-03-2012 dks Hkw[k.M dk fdjk;k tek djkus ds fy;s oknh }kjk mldh cSad nh ckMesj lsUV~y dks&vksijsfVo cSad 'kk[kk izFke ckyksrjk o mldk cSad [kkrk uEcj 7142 izfroknh dks crkus ds ckn fnukad & 04-08-2012 dks oknh ds fdjk;k dh jkf'k :i;s 5400@& dh cSad jlhn fnukad& 29-03-2012 oknh ds vf/koDrk ds No objection ds dFku ls bl nkok dh i=koyh esa is'k dh Fkh tks i=koyh jsdMZ ij yh tkdj mls iznf'kZr djus dk U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k fn;k x;k gSA mls iznf'kZr djkosA 2- fd mlds ckn tks tks izfroknh }kjk oknh ds cSad [kkrk esa fdjk;s dh jkf'k;k oknh ds cSad [kkrk esa tek djkbZ xbZ gS os dqy vly X;kjg cSad jlhns bl nkok dh i=koyh esa is'k dh tk pqdh gSA ;g izkFkZuk i= is'k djuk ;g jg x;k FkkA tks is'k gS tks fnukad 31-07-2016 rd dk vfxze fdjk;k gSA vr% fuosnu gSa fd oknh ds fdjk;k dh izfroknh }kjk izLrqr jlhns jsdMZ ij ysus dk vkns'k iznku djkos vkSj mUgsa Hkh iznf'kZr djkosaA enu [k=h Champalal Soni vf/koDrk izfroknh 7. A perusal of the application indicates that the same has been filed under Order 11, Rule 14 C.P.C. and in the writ petition also the prayer has been made to allow the application under Order 11, Rule 14 C.P.C. when the counsel for the petitioner was asked regarding applicability of provisions of Order 11, Rule 14 C.P.C. in the context of the prayer, which has been made in the application, it was fairly conceded that the application has been wrongly filed under the provisions of Order 11, Rule 14 CPC and in fact the same is under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) C.P.C. 8. Even if the application is considered under the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1A (3) C.P.C. a bare perusal of the application reveals that in a casual manner the averments have been made in the application and the petitioner has not even cared to indicate that the prayer which is being made regarding the receipt dated 29.03.2012 already sands rejected by the trial court by order dated 16.11.2013 and despite rejection again a prayer has been incorporated. Qua other eleven receipts, which are sought to be produced pertain to the period 13.07.2013 to 02.03.2016. The casualness, with which, the application has been filed, is further reflected from the fact that once the evidence of the defendant is over and if now the application is granted, the same would by itself not make the documents admissible and would essentially result in another application by the petitioner for production of witnesses for marking the documents as exhibits. 9. The very fact that petitioner has taken over four and a half years in leading his evidence and on one occasion the trial court has passed order under Section 35B C.P.C. striking of petitioner's defence on account of his failure to deposit the cost imposed during the course of the suit, clearly reflects that the present application has only been filed with a view to somehow delay the proceedings, which are pending before the Court. 10. The petitioner has failed to make out any case whatsoever for grant of application even under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) C.P.C. so as to require interference by this Court in the order impugned. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.