ORDER 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.11.2019, passed by the Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), vide which petitioners application dated 21.10.2019, filed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected. 2. Succinctly stated the facts appertain to the present case are that the respondents instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of mesne profit against the present petitioner. Petitioner filed a reply and took a defence that the suit property is owned by him. 3. Written statements were filed; issues were framed; even plaintiffs evidence is over and when the suit has reached at the stage of defendants evidence, petitioner moved subject application and sought liberty to place various documents on record inter alia contending that he has got these documents during Diwali when the house was being cleaned. 4. The trial Court rejected petitioners application vide impugned order inter alia observing that the reason given by the petitioner that the documents were not easily traceable to him, is not believable, as cleaning of the house takes place every Diwali and not in a particular Diwali and that the documents are not relevant. 5. Mr. Chitlangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents in question are necessary with a view to establish that the petitioner is residing in the disputed property and that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application in the interest of justice, ignoring the delay. It was argued that there is no substantial delay, inasmuch as the case is at the stage of petitioners evidence. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court concurs with the view taken by the trial Court. 7. The Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Order VIII Rule 1-A requires that all the documents in support of the defence should be mentioned in the list and to be produced at the time of written statement. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1-A of the Code further provides that if they are not in possession at the time of filing written statement, a reference of such document should be made. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1-A of the Code further provides that if they are not in possession at the time of filing written statement, a reference of such document should be made. An exception to those provision have been carved out in the form of sub-rule (3), which permits a defendant to place them for evidence, with the leave of the Court. 8. The documents in question are electricity bill, ration card, registered A.D. etc. It cannot be believed that the petitioner did not have knowledge of these documents, for which not even a reference was made in the written statement and during the Diwali cleaning, the same have been found. 9. Looking to the fact that the case is at the stage of defendants evidence, the trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting petitioners application. 10. The order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity, error of law or of jurisdiction warranting interference, in light of restrictions on interference carved out by Honble the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 and Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., reported in 2003 (6) SCC 675 . 11. The writ petition, therefore, fails. 12. The stay application is also dismissed.