ORDER : 1. The petitioners are defendants who are feeling aggrieved against the order dt.11.10.2019 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19425/2019 whereby application filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC has been rejected. 2. The petitioners are also aggrieved against the order dt.01.11.2019 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19424/2019 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 151 CPC has been rejected by the Court below refusing to summon the Tehsildar to lead his evidence. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Court below has failed to take into account that the petitioners were in possession of document relating to description of the property in question and after getting information under Right to Information Act by moving an application on 17.09.2019, the petitioners got the complete detail with respect to old Khasra No.909 and new Khasras were not made out from the same piece of land on 22.06.2000 by allotting Khasra Nos.1352, 1353 & 1354 and as such agreement was fabricated. 4. Counsel submitted that entire suit of the plaintiffs was based on agreement to sale dt.22.06.2000 and as per information supplied to the petitioners, the description of Khasra numbers was not at all matching with the property in question. Counsel submitted that there was no delay on the part of the petitioners to file application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC and immediately after getting the information under Right to Information Act, the petitioners had moved the application. Counsel submitted that the Court below has committed an error in rejecting the application only on account of pendency of suit since 2009. 5. Counsel submitted that the power conferred under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC, the Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction by considering the availability of documents at subsequent stage and as such the Court below ought to have taken on record the relevant documents which the petitioners wanted to place for refuting the claim of the plaintiffs. 6. Counsel further submitted that admittedly the earlier application filed with respect to revenue entries, was rejected by the Court below vide order dt.04.05.2018, however, the subsequent information available with the petitioners was reflecting on the real locations and dimensions of the property and as such only on account of dismissal of earlier application, the Court below should not have rejected the application. 7. 7. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 8. This Court finds that the Court below has recorded a finding that the suit was pending since 2009 and the petitioners-defendants had all the time and opportunity to get the relevant record and to file the same before the Court for proper adjudication. 9. This Court further finds that the Court below has recorded a finding that the purpose and scope of Order 8 Rule 1 (3) CPC is not permit to take the documents on record at any stage and in particularly, when the case is posted for final hearing. 10. This Court finds that the petitioners are defendants in the suit and as such they were within their right to gather relevant information within reasonable time, however, filing of application at the stage of suit being finally taken up for hearing, the very purpose of taking document on record, is defeated. 11. This Court finds that the Court below has rightly exercised its discretion in refusing to entertain the application of the petitioners and as such no error is committed. 12. The order does not require any interference, hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. 13. A copy of this order separately be placed in another file.