R.S. Chauhan, J.

Aggrieved by the order dated 8.2.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.25, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed two applications filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioner has approached this court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioner in respect of a shop, situated at Bharat Talkies, Sikar. The petitioner had filed his written statement in which he denied the bona fide necessity of the plaintiff, and the fact of default in payment of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed two applications under Order 8, Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC for taking certain documents on record. By order dated 8.2.2013, the learned trial court has dismissed both the applications. Hence, this petition before this court.

3. Mr. Manish Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the respondent has filed the eviction suit against the petitioner on the ground of bona fide necessity, and nuisance and other grounds. However, in his plaint he has mentioned the fact that since the Rajasthan Rent Control Act is inapplicable to Chomu, therefore, on 19.4.2005 he had issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the petitioner. However, according to the learned counsel, even prior to notice dated 19.4.2005, the plaintiff-respondent had issued a notice on 12.5.2003. The notice dated 12.5.2003 would contradict the contents of the notice dated 19.4.2005. Therefore, it was imperative to bring the notice dated 12.5.2003 on record.

Secondly, the notice dated 12.5.2003 would clearly reveal that the petitioner was asked to pay a rent of Rs.300/- per month, but in the notice dated 19.4.2005, the respondent has claimed that the petitioner was required to pay a rent of Rs.600/- per month.

Thirdly, the respondent had filed certain other civil suits for eviction against other tenants wherein he clearly revealed the rental amount to be Rs.300/- per month. Therefore, it was imperative to submit those plaints which were filed in other civil suits.

Fourthly, the petitioner had filed certain FIRs against the respondent as the respondent was trying to dispossess him from the property in dispute through force. Although negative final reports have been submitted in the criminal cases, but it was essential to establish the respondents conduct in order to prove that he is trying to evict the petitioner through any means legal, or illegal available to him. Thus, these documents were essential for deciding the issues pending before the learned trial court.

Lastly, the learned trial court has dismissed the application ostensibly on the ground that the application has been filed after an inordinate delay. According to the learned counsel, delay could not be a ground for dismissing the said application especially when these documents are relevant for the final decision of the case. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and Anr. v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and Ors., [(1994) 4 SCC 659] [LQ/SC/1994/137] and on the case of Santveer Singh v. Addl. Civil Judge, Hanumangarh and Anr., [2004 (3) WLC 397].

4. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, has contended that the suit for eviction has not been filed on the basis of notice dated 19.4.2005. Instead, it was filed on the basis of bona fide necessity and other grounds. Even if a notice had been issued on 12.5.2003, the same has lost its relevance as the said notice was never followed through by the plaintiff-respondent and no eviction proceedings were initiated on the basis of the said notice.

Secondly, in his written statement, the petitioner has never mentioned the existence of the first notice dated 12.5.2003. He has merely acknowledged the fact that he had received a notice dated 19.4.2005 to which he had replied. Therefore, from the day one the petitioner has not spoken about the notice dated 12.5.2003. It is only at the fag end of the trial that the petitioner is trying to now introduce a new piece of evidence in order to upset the apple cart.

Thirdly, as far as the alleged contradiction between the notice dated 12.5.2003 and the notice dated 19.4.2005 are concerned, if there had been any contradiction with regard to rental amount, the same could have been proven by the petitioner by adducing other evidence.

Fourthly, the petitioner had ample opportunities to marshall out all the evidence in his favour. But he chose not to do so. Therefore, at the penultimate end of the trial he cannot be permitted to introduce new evidence.

Fifthly, all these documents, mentioned by the petitioner, were well within his knowledge and he had ample time from 2005 till 2013 to produce all these documents during the course of the trial. But he failed to do so. Therefore, he cannot be allowed to bring them on record now.

Lastly, these documents are not relevant to the issues pending before the learned trial court. Since the petitioner is trying to introduce irrelevant evidence, the learned Judge was justified in dismissing his application, both on the ground of delay and on the basis of irrelevancy of the documents.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

6. While dealing with an application under Order 8, Rule 1A(3) CPC, the court is concerned not only about relevancy of the documents, but equally concerned about the timing of filing of the application. For, the conduct of the parties is a relevant fact or, to be considered while adjudicating upon such an application.

7. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 2005, admittedly, presently the suit is fixed for final arguments. Thus, the suit has almost reached the point when the curtain would finally fall on the dispute between the parties. According to the written statement filed by the petitioner, he neither mentioned the existence of the notice dated 12.5.2003, nor pleaded that the notice dated 19.4.2005 is contradicted by the previous alleged notice dated 12.5.2003. Obviously if a notice had been served upon him in 2003, the said fact and a copy of the notice was within the possession of the petitioner. Yet from 2005 till 2013 the petitioner chose not to reveal this fact to the learned trial court. Moreover, even if he has to prove the point with regard to actual rent amount to be paid by him, the notice dated 12.5.2003 was not the only piece of evidence which could be produced by him to establish this fact. After all, this fact could be proven by other oral evidence for which the petitioner was having ample opportunities to marshall out during the course of the trial. Therefore, the contention being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice dated 12.5.2003 is relevant in order to prove the contradictory stand being taken by the respondent and to establish the actual rental amount to be paid to him is clearly untenable.

8. As far as the plaints filed by the plaintiff-respondent against other tenants are concerned, even the said plaints are irrelevant for the purpose of the present case. Firstly, the petitioner is required to establish his case on his own evidence. Secondly, these plaints and existence of civil suits were also within his knowledge during the course of trial. There is no explanation given by the petitioner as to why these plaints are being produced at the very end of the trial. Moreover, the learned Judge is justified in holding that if there were other tenants who were paying the same rental amount as the petitioner, a fact which was mentioned by the plaintiff-respondent in other civil suits filed by him, the petitioner did have ample opportunities to produce those other tenants as witnesses during the course of the trial. Yet he has chosen not to do so. Thus, the learned Judge is certainly justified in concluding that even these plaints do not throw any new light on the dispute which exists between the parties.

9. As far as the FIRs and negative Final Reports are concerned, the learned Judge is certainly justified in his reasoning that even these documents were in the knowledge of the petitioner. Moreover, these documents have no concern with the issues involved in the civil suit pending before the learned trial court.

10. In the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and Anr. (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under:

It is undoubted that there is a delay in production of the said documents. But the trial court had stated that the application was filed at the stage of arguments, seeking to produce those documents and sought to rely upon the documents. It is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof.

11. No issue can be raised with regard to the observations made by the Apex Court. However, what is essential for present case is to notice the fact that none of the documents are relevant in order to decide the controversy which persists before the learned trial court.

12. Therefore, the learned trial court was absolutely justified in concluding that not only the documents are irrelevant, but they are also being filed after an inordinate delay of many years. Since the learned Magistrate has given cogent and legal reasons, this court does not find any illegality, or perversity in the impugned order. This petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.

Petition dismissed.