Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present writ petition, petitioners have laid challenge to an order dated 08.05.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge, Balotra, whereby petitioners application dated 16.02.2017 under Order 7, Rule 14 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief are that the petitioners - plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injuction against the defendants in the year-2003.

3. The petitioners evidence had been closed in the year 2008, yet they proceeded to file an application on 16.02.2017, under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to place certain documents viz. three judgments dated 30.03.2010, 17.03.2011 and 29.05.2015 of the different Courts involving the same parties. Petitioners such application has been rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 08.05.2017, with the following observations :-

^^izkFkZuk i= ij cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh o lacaf/kr fof/k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA i=koyh us voyksdu ls ;g LiV gS fd izek.k esa okZ 2006 ls 2008 rd i=koyh lk{; oknh gsrq fu;r jgh rFkk okZ 2008 ls yxkrkj lk{; izfroknh gsrq fu;r gSa oknh dh vksj ls gLrxr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 29-6-2011 dks is"k fd;k x;k FkkA fnukad 29-6-2011 dks i=koyh lk{; izfroknh ds iz:i ij jghA vkns"k 7 fu;e 14 (3) lh ih lh ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj dksbZ nLrkost tks okni= izLrqr fd, tkrs le; oknh gktk U;k;ky; esa is"k fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk ijUrq ugh fd;k x;k gS og U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ds fcuk okn dh lquokbZ ds le; mldh vksj ls lk{; esa ugha fy;k tk,xkA bl izdkj gLrxr izej.k esa oknh }kjk mDr izkFkZuk i= lk{; izfr oknh ds ize ij is"k fd;kA oknh dh lk{; lekIr gks pqdh gSA lk{; gsrq oknh dks Ik;kZIr volj Hkh fn, tk pqds gSA izdj.k okZ 2003 ls yafcr gSA bl ize ij oknh lk{; izLrqr izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugh gksrk gSA vr% oknh dk izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA oknh }kjk izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk izLrqr nLrkost i=koyh esa Hkkx Mh esa j[kk tkosaA**

4. Mr. Harish Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the order under consideration submitted that the court below has seriously erred in rejecting the petitioners application, essentially being influenced by the fact that their evidence had already been closed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even if the evidence of the plaintiffs had been closed, the documents having bearing and nexus with the dispute be taken on record. He submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the documents in question relate to same dispute and have been passed between the same parties and had been passed after closing of the evidence.

6. Mr. Purohit, invited the attention of this Court towards an order dated 12.03.2012 passed by this Court in petitioners earlier writ petition, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6625/2011, wherein a similar order on petitioners application under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure passed on 01.04.2011 had been quashed by this Court and documents were ordered to be taken on record.

7. Mr. Purohit, in light of the aforesaid judgment, submitted that on the basis of the analogy of the order passed in petitioners earlier writ petition on 12.03.2012, the present writ petition also deserve to be allowed. In light of these submission, Mr. Purohit prayed that the documents be taken on record.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned dated 08.05.2017 warranting interference. This Court cannot lose right of the fact that the suit in question had been filed way back in 2003 and petitioners evidence had been closed in the year 2008. The petitioners had earlier filed an identical application under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which had been rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 01.04.2011 and the writ petition where-against has been allowed. If the petitioners were vigilant, they ought to have filed those documents at an earlier point of time before the Trial Court, as the same being the judgments dated 30.03.2010 and 17.03.2011 were in their knowledge. Out of three documents; two relate to period of 2010-11 and even the third order of Additional Collector referred to by the petitioners is an order passed on 29.05.2015.

9. In view of these facts, the petitioners application filed on 16.02.2017 for taking these documents on record, is highly belated keeping in view the long pendency of the suit. This Court does not find it to be a fit case to exercise its extra supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

10. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is made clear that this Court has rejected petitioners application, only on the ground of delay in filing the same. The petitioners may take appropriate remedies in an appeal, if required to be filed against the final judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.