JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.02.2017, passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court'), vide which the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 01.02.2014, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), East, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), has been rejected. 2. Succinctly stated the facts relevant for the present purpose are that the petitioners filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and sought an injunction qua the respondents that they be restrained from interfering in his possession over the land situated in Khasra No.471. 3. Along with the suit aforesaid, the plaintiffs - petitioners had also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was rejected by the trial Court, vide its order dated 01.02.2014. Learned trial Court, while rejecting the petitioner's application seeking temporary injunction, observed that petitioners are seeking temporary injunction in relation to land situated in Khasra No.471 on the basis of a 'Patta', whereas the defendants have placed on record a 'Patta' issued in respect of the disputed land. Learned trial Court has also observed that the copy of the document of title placed by the plaintiffs is not legible. 4. The Appellate Court while deciding petitioners' appeal also affirmed the findings so recorded by the trial Court and rejected their appeal. 5. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned Courts below have erred in rejecting petitioners' temporary injunction application. He invited Court's attention towards photo-stat copy of certified copy of the proceedings of the Sub-Registrar, Bhilwara and submitted that his father had purchased the land in question by way of registered document. He added that though the said document records Aaraji No. 127, however, it is the old khasra number corresponding to new Khasra number which is known as Khasra No.471. 6. Heard. 7. The present writ petition, challenging the order passed on 14.02.2017, has been filed on 04.11.2019 i.e. after passing of about two years and nine months. The petition, at hand, thus clearly suffered from delay and laches. 6. Heard. 7. The present writ petition, challenging the order passed on 14.02.2017, has been filed on 04.11.2019 i.e. after passing of about two years and nine months. The petition, at hand, thus clearly suffered from delay and laches. In a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the same emanates from an order of rejecting injunction application, no indulgence can be granted at such a belated stage, having regard to the settled principles of grant of injunction, that in case of delay the Court can refuse to grant injunction. 8. That apart, so far as the document (Annex.6), which has been heavily relied upon by the petitioners is concerned, suffice it to observe that it has neither been placed before the trial Court nor the same has been considered by the Courts below, while deciding petitioners' application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code. It is settled law that in a writ petition Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot consider any other fact or document or evidence, which was not part of the record of the trial Court/Tribunal below. 9. Concededly, the document Annex.6 was not a part of the record, this Court thus, refuses to give cognizance to the same. No finding can be recorded on the basis of such document, at this stage. 10. So far as the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are concerned, they have been recorded on correct appreciation of the evidence/material on record. This Court does not find any error in the order passed by the learned Courts below. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition as well as the stay application is dismissed. Needless to observe that the petitioners shall be free to place on record the certified copy of the record of the Sub-Registrar (Annex.6) in accordance with law. As and when any application seeking production of such document is filed, the trial Court shall decide the same in accordance with law, without being influenced by the fact that this Court has refused to take cognizance of the said document.