JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 08.12.2017, passed by Gram Nayalaya, Hanumangarh whereby respondents' application under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed. 2. Briefly stated the facts appertain are that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit suit for declaration against the present respondents. The defendants filed a written statement so also a reply to the temporary injunction application. A copy of the agreement dated 22.02.2007 was filed with the reply to the temporary injunction application, but the same was not filed with the written statement. 3. On coming to know about such error, the defendants moved an application dated 16.11.2017 and sought a leave of the Court to place the said agreement dated 22.02.2007 on record. 4. The present petitioner - plaintiff opposed respondents' such application and contended that application in question, which was filed after seven years deserved to be rejected. 5. Learned trial Court, however, allowed defendants' said application under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the Code, inter alia observing that a copy of the agreement dated 22.02.2007 was filed in reply to the temporary injunction application, however, the same was not filed in the written statement due to inadvertence. Treating the said error to be a bonafide error, the trial Court allowed the application and permitted the defendants to place on record the contentious document on 08.12.2017, subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-. 6. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the trial Court has erred in accepting defendants' application dated 16.11.2007 under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3). He argued that no justifiable reason has been assigned in the application, for which, it deserved dismissal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the order impugned, this Court is of the firm view that trial Court has exercised its discretion in order to meet the ends of justice. 8. This Court does not find any error of jurisdiction or of law warranting interference in view of restrictions on interference carved out by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 675 . 9. The writ petition, therefore, fails. 10. The stay application is also dismissed.