JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 28/5/2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Sujangarh, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 12 & 14 CPC has been rejected. 2. In a suit filed in the year 1981 for possession, the present application (Annex.10) was filed on behalf of the petitioners inter alia with the avements that the original Patta (Ex.1) is not on record and only its photocopy (Ex.1-A) is on record and for the purpose of cross examination on the said Patta, the original Patta is required to be produced. 3. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs inter alia indicating that the application does not indicate any reason. Further, the prayer was disputed on merits also. 4. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the original Patta was produced by P.W.1 Manmal on 30/7/1987 and after comparing the same with the original Ex.1-A was marked and original Patta was returned. The said witness P.W.1 has also been thoroughly cross examined and there was no necessity to summon the said original document. The defendants were entitled to cross examine the witnesses based on copy of the Patta (Ex.1-A), regarding other documents it was indicated that there was no averment in the application and that the plea in relation to same was rejected by way of decision on the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and consequently the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 12 & 14 CPC was rejected. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the rejection of the application is not justified inasmuch as the earlier statement was recorded based on the issues as were then framed, however, subsequently the issues have been amended on 8/12/2015 and for the purpose of decision on the said issues further cross examination on the Patta was necessary. 6. Submissions were made that in cross examination of one of the witnesses Surendra Kumar dated 23/7/2019, he attempted to produce a document claiming the same as Ex.1, however, no exhibit was marked on the said document, which clearly shows that the finding recorded by the trial court in relation to the said Patta is baseless and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record. 8. A perusal of the application (Annex.10) would reveal that the petitioners wanted production of original Patta (Ex.1) for cross examination of witness Surendra Kumar, for which the application was filed on 11/1/2019. The application was rejected by the trial court on 28/5/2019, whereafter, cross examination of witness Surendra Kumar as P.W.4 has been concluded on 30/7/2019, thereafter, the present petition has been filed on 6/1/2020. The purpose for which the document was desired to be produced by the petitioners was for cross examination of Surendra Kumar, the order rejecting the application was passed on 28/5/2019, which was not challenged by the petitioner at the relevant time and after the cross examination of Surendra Kumar was over way back on 30/7/2019, the present writ petition has been filed on 6/1/2020, which clearly indicates that the purpose for which the document was desired to be produced being over, the petition has been filed after 07 months seeking to question the order dated 28/5/2019, in a suit which is pending since 1981 i.e. for now over 38 years, is not bonafide. 9. Besides the above, the determination made by the trial court in the circumstances of the case does not call for interference while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.