JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This petition has been filed against order, dated 2nd December, 2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., whereby the application filed by the defendants, i.e. petitioner and proforma respondent No. 13 herein, under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) for production of revenue documents on behalf of defendants has been dismissed. 2. Plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant-Abdul Bahab (predecessor-in-interest of present defendants), who expired during the pendency of the suit and is now being represented through his legal representatives, seeking declaration that mutation bearing No. 810, dated 3rd October, 1990 is null and void and does not confer any right on the defendant as a consequence of further declaration sought that the Will of one Khadam Ali is null and void resultantly restraining the defendant by decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from proclaiming him as owner of the share of Khadam Ali in the suit land. 3. In the written statement, defendant has contested the suit by asserting his right in the property in dispute relying upon mutation No. 810 attested in his favour on 3rd October, 1990 on the basis of jabani wasika (oral will) executed by one Khadam Ali in favour of father of the defendants. 4. Before completing their evidence, defendants had filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC for production of documents. The said application was allowed by the trial Court subject to payment of costs quantified at 400/. Thereafter, defendants had closed their evidence on 10th November, 2016 and case was fixed for arguments. At this stage, on 1st December, 2016, defendants have moved another application, which is subject matter of the present petitioner, for production of documents. 5. The said application was allowed by the trial Court subject to payment of costs quantified at 400/. Thereafter, defendants had closed their evidence on 10th November, 2016 and case was fixed for arguments. At this stage, on 1st December, 2016, defendants have moved another application, which is subject matter of the present petitioner, for production of documents. 5. In the application (Annexure P5 to the present petition), it has been averred that defendant had filed written statement but could not submit certain record pertaining to land/subject matter in dispute in pending suit, which was not in possession of the defendant earlier but has been procured by the defendant from the Copying Agency on 26th November, 2016 and thus, production of following documents has been sought: (i) Certified Copy of Missal Hakiat for the year 1945-46 and Nakal Jamabandi for the year 1951-52 alongwith its translated copies in hindi language of mauja Khokhan fati, Tehsil Kullu, District Kangra H.P.; (ii) Certified copy of mutation No. 114, dated 22-10-1949 & Nakal Sajra alongwith its translated copies in hindi language of mauja Khokhan fati, Tehsil Kullu, District Kangra, H.P. 6. It has further been averred that aforesaid record was not in possession of the defendant at the time of filing of written statement or framing of issues and as it is an important piece of documentary evidence, the application has been filed. It has also been claimed that no prejudice is going to be caused to any of the parties in the suit, rather, it will facilitate to meet the ends of justice. 7. The application was contested by the respondents-plaintiffs on the ground that no plausible reason has been shown for not producing these documents earlier and the said documents were already in existence and in the knowledge of the defendant and, therefore, the simple reason, to have obtained the said documents on a subsequent date, is not a reason which can be made basis to allow the application. 8. After considering rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court has dismissed the application. Hence, the instant petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 10. 8. After considering rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court has dismissed the application. Hence, the instant petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits that evidence was closed on 10th November, 2016 and the documents were received from the Copying Agency on 26th November, 2016 and immediately thereafter, application was filed on 1st December, 2016, thus, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the application. Further that these documents are relevant to prove that Khadam Ali was alive till 1949 as copy of mutation No. 114, attested on 26th October, 1949, sought to be produced on record, clearly indicates the attestation of the said mutation in presence of said Khadam Ali whereas the respondents plaintiffs have claimed that said Khadam Ali was killed during riots in 1947. 11. According to learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, another copy of jamabandi for the year 1951-52, reflecting the name of Khadam Ali as the owner, is also necessary document to be produced on record to prove that Khadam Ali was alive in the year 1951-52. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has submitted that these documents are not connected to the suit land in any manner as these documents pertain to property situated in another District having no connection with the present suit property. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has relied upon judgment of this Court in case titled as Shakuntla Devi and ors. versus Gian Singh, reported in Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 1242, wherein the application for production of documents was allowed by this Court. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has relied upon judgments passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in CMPMO No. 363 of 2015, titled as Nirmal Singh versus Manohar Lal and others; and CMPMO No. 161 of 2016, titled as Gian Chand and others versus Jawala Parshad and others, decided on 8th April, 2016, and 28th April, 2016, respectively, wherein applications filed after closing of the evidence to produce documents were dismissed. 14. In Shakuntla Devi's case (supra), it has specifically been noticed by the Court that petitioners had not closed their evidence when the application was filed to prove the mutation. 14. In Shakuntla Devi's case (supra), it has specifically been noticed by the Court that petitioners had not closed their evidence when the application was filed to prove the mutation. Further, by referring pronouncement in the case titled as Prakash Keshri versus Smt. Shintu Devi, reported in 2007 (4) CCC 769, it has been held that relevancy of the document in the background of the pleadings and controversy is to be considered at the time of consideration to grant leave to produce the documents under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC. 15. In the present case, though, it has been mentioned in the application that documents sought to be produced pertain to the land/subject matter in dispute, however, from the documents, it is evident that these documents pertain to the property situated in mauja Khokhan fati, Tehsil Kullu, District Kangra (now District Kullu) whereas the suit property is situated in mohal Dugrain/5, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. Thus, the land subject matter of the documents sought to be produced is not even remotely connected with the suit land. 16. The plea of learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, that these documents will prove that Khadam Ali was alive till 1951-52, appears to have been raised for the first time in this Court, is not permissible to be raised at this stage, as it was never a ground taken by the petitioner-defendant at the time of filing of the application or at the time of addressing arguments before the trial Court and in instant petition also, no such ground has ever been taken except in oral arguments today. 17. Even if the petitioner is permitted to raise the said plea, the perusal of these documents nowhere indicates that Khadam Ali was alive at the time of preparation of those documents. 18. Respondents-plaintiffs have claimed that Khadam Ali had expired during riots in the year 1947. Jamabandi for the year 1951-52, sought to be placed on record, falls within a period of about four years of his death and normally, revenue records are updated after four years. Therefore, this document is not relevant even to prove that Khadam Ali was alive in 1951-52. 19. Jamabandi for the year 1951-52, sought to be placed on record, falls within a period of about four years of his death and normally, revenue records are updated after four years. Therefore, this document is not relevant even to prove that Khadam Ali was alive in 1951-52. 19. Further, mutation No. 114 nowhere indicates the presence of Khadam Ali or any other owner mentioned in the column of owners in the said mutation as it has specifically been mentioned that first party, i.e. owners of the property were being representing through custodian evacuee. Meaning thereby that the said property was considered as evacuee property, which was certainly possible only if none of the owners was present at that time not only on the spot but in India as only those properties were declared to be evacuee properties, whose owners had left India to settle in Pakistan. 20. Further, in the said document, it has been clearly mentioned that Omi Chand alias Sadh Ram, the second party, was identified by Mohnu Nambardaar. There is no reference of presence and identification of the persons mentioned in the column of owner including Khadam Ali. 21. Therefore, so far as relevancy of these documents is concerned, these documents neither pertain to the suit property nor are going to prove any fact being argued on behalf of the petitioner-defendant. 22. Further, perusal of the written statement placed on record as Annexure P4 also reflects that no such ground was ever taken that Khadam Ali had not expired during the riots in the year 1947, but was alive till 1951-52. 23. Not only for the above reasons, but also for the fact, contrary to the facts in Shakuntla Devi's case (supra), in the present case, the defendants have already closed their evidence prior to filing of this application and the case was fixed for arguments. Therefore, ratio of Shakuntla Devi's case (supra) relied upon by the petitioner-defendant is not applicable in present case but case law relied upon by the respondents-plaintiffs is nearer to facts and circumstances of present case. 24. For aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity, impropriety, illegality, much less irregularly in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court has considered the facts and material placed before it in right perspective with complete and correct appreciation. 25. 24. For aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity, impropriety, illegality, much less irregularly in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court has considered the facts and material placed before it in right perspective with complete and correct appreciation. 25. Viewed thus, there is no merit in the present petition, hence, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.