ORDER Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/defendant assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Malakhera, Alwar whereby, an application filed by him under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC, has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioner in the year 2012. During course of trial, the petitioner moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC seeking leave of the Court to place on record a photocopy of the Will dated 22.12.1946. The application has been dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2022, impugned herein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the application only on ground of delay without appreciating its relevance or admissibility. He submitted that a document tendered by any of the parties can be taken on record at any stage and hence, the order dated 08.04.2022 is liable to be quashed and set aside. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon two judgments of this Court in cases of I.B.P. Company Ltd. & Anr. versus Smt. Chandra Bai & Ors.: 2000 DNJ [Raj.] 33 & Ratan Kumari versus Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Ors.: 2012 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1373. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. A perusal of the order dated 08.04.2022 reveals that the petitioner moved the application after her evidence was closed that too after availing a number of opportunities for this purpose. It has further been observed by the learned trial Court that the matter was pending consideration since the year 2012 and neither there was reference of the Will in the written statement filed by her nor it was brought into picture at any stage including her evidence. This Court has gone through the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave of the Court under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC and finds that it is bereft of any reason as to why no reference of it was made in the written statement or at any stage during the trial. Further, it does not reveal a plausible reason for delay in seeking to place the same on record except that it was misplaced which is not confidence inspiring. 6. Further, it does not reveal a plausible reason for delay in seeking to place the same on record except that it was misplaced which is not confidence inspiring. 6. In view thereof, the learned trial Court did not err in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC. 7. There is another important aspect of the matter. The document sought to be placed on record is a photocopy of the registered Will. No reason has been assigned for not presenting the Will in original or even a certified copy of the Will. In the garb of production of the photocopy of the Will, the petitioner could not have been permitted to start the trial afresh. 8. In case of I.B.P. Company & Anr. (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that a document can be taken on record at any stage of the proceedings where a Court does not have any doubt about its relevance and admissibility. In the present case, as already held, it is a photocopy of the registered Will which has been sought to be placed on record at the stage of final arguments without assigning any reason for non production of its original or at least a certified copy. 9. Similarly, in case of Ratan Kumari (supra), the writ petition filed against an order of the learned trial Court allowing an application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC, was dismissed. 10. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.