JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - Under challenge is the order dated 3.4.2018 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner (hereafter the defendant) under Order 8 Rule 1a(3) has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit in 2004 for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. Written statement was filed by the defendants. Issues were framed on 15.11.2006. Thereafter on 24.3.2018, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1a(3) CPC for taking on record the certified copy of amended cause titles, report of site commissioner; and the judgment dated 25.4.2011 passed on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in Civil Suit No. 1/2004 (19/2004). The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. On consideration of the matter, the learned trial court vide its order dated 3.4.2018 dismissed the application. Hence this petition. 3. Heard counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order dated 3.4.2018 passed by the trial court. 4. The trial court under its impugned order dated 3.4.2018 has found that the documents sought to be taken on record were related to the earlier dispute in between the parties and they were the certified copies of the judgment, report of court commissioner and issues framed by the trial court, which had already been considered by the court. The defendant did not disclose in his application as to how the documents sought to be taken on record were related to the dispute before it and as to how were they helpful to him. The application was therefore dismissed. 5. The delayed resort by moving the application under Order 8 Rule 1a(3) CPC on 24.3.2018 without any adequate explanation could not be countenanced as it was evidently with an intent to procrastinate the trial of the suit, which was filed in the year 2004. Order 8 Rule 1a(3) CPC indeed confers discretion on the trial court to allow belated filing of the documents. But the discretion has to be exercised judicially and for good reason. The trial court has taken into consideration the overall facts of the case including the delay in filing the application, refused to exercise its discretion under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC. 6. But the discretion has to be exercised judicially and for good reason. The trial court has taken into consideration the overall facts of the case including the delay in filing the application, refused to exercise its discretion under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases has held that where discretionary orders of the trial court are well considered and reasoned, there should be no interference therewith by the superior courts. This would be moreso in the so exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to be exercised in situations of jurisdictional error, perversity, patent illegality, manifest injustice to a party before court. None of the aforesaid situations obtain in the instant petition. I therefore see no ground to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is without force and the same is hereby dismissed.