JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that record of the case be called for and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- i. the impugned order dated 06.09.2023 (Annex.1) passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur in Civil Suit No.07/2011 (CIS No.195/2019) titled as “Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. Saddique & Ors.” may kindly be quashed and set aside; the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC may kindly be allowed throughout. ii. any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be passed in favour of the petitioner; iii. writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioner, are that the respondent no.1 to 12 instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the father of the petitioner (Gulam Mustafa Sisodiya) before the learned Additional District Judge, Makarana, District Nagaur. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father filed a written statement on 22.02.2011; during the pendency of the suit, Gulam Mustafa Sisodiya expired, whereupon, he was substituted by his legal representatives, including the present petitioner. 2.1. Subsequently, in the pending civil suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1 (3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC before the learned Court below for taking certain documents on record. The respondents filed a reply to the said application. 2.2. Thereafter, learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 06.09.2023 rejected the said application of the petitioner. Thus, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner by way of the application had only sought to bring on record rent receipts for the years from 1965 till 2023 and two other documents, pertaining to Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 04.08.2016 and newspaper cutting regarding the public notice issued for grant of EC, alongwith certain other documents, which were received by the petitioner after filing of the written statement. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is not justified in law. 3.1. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is not justified in law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner filed the written statement in the year 2011 and the documents sought to be brought on record were received by the petitioner at a later stage, and therefore, the petitioner filed the application subsequently. Thus, as per learned counsel, in those circumstances, the learned Court below ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Court below failed to consider the relevance of the documents for the purpose of examination as well as cross-examination, and the said documents are also relevant for effective adjudication of the aforementioned suit, but despite the same, the learned Court below passed the impugned order, which is not justified in law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. C.V.S. Shekhawat appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the respondent’s evidence also stood completed by the learned Court below and now the petitioner has filed an application for additional documents without any cogent and justifiable reason, and thus, the learned Court below has rightly rejected such application of the petitioner vide the impugned order. 4.1. It was further submitted that the documents sought to be brought on record were already in possession of the petitioner even at the time of filing of the written statement but the petitioner has filed the application in question just to prolong the trial of the suit in question. It was also submitted that the suit in question was filed in the year 2011 and after almost 12 years, the application in question has been filed by the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the respondent no. 1 to 12 instituted the aforementioned suit against the father of the petitioner (Gulam Mustafa Sisodiya) before learned Court below. The petitioner’s father filed the written statement on 22.02.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the application under Order 8 Rule 1 (3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC before the learned Court below seeking to bring on record certain documents. The respondents filed reply to the said application. The petitioner’s father filed the written statement on 22.02.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the application under Order 8 Rule 1 (3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC before the learned Court below seeking to bring on record certain documents. The respondents filed reply to the said application. The learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 06.09.2023 rejected the said application of the petitioner. 7. This Court further observes that the petitioner filed the aforementioned application for bringing certain documents on record; in the said application, the petitioner gave a list of 11 documents, in total, without giving any justified reason as well as without any substantial reason or proof regarding non-production of such documents at the time of filing the written statement. 8. This Court also observes that the suit in question was pending since 2011 and after almost 12 years, at evidence stage, the petitioner has filed the application in question, which is not justified at all. This Court further observes that the learned Court below has passed the impugned order after duly considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, which is justified in law. 9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.