JUDGMENT
N.K. Jain, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nimbahera dt. 8.11.1989 whereby he has rejected the application.
2. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit on 4.4.80 for eviction alleging that the suit shop is required for ‘dire necessity’ (Sakht Jarurat) for his son Ramchandra. The defendant-petitioner denied the allegation. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and after evidence the case was fixed for final arguments. The defendant moved an application for leave to produce certain documents but on the objection of the plaintiff the same was rejected on 7.2.1989. Again on 22.8.1989 an application for taking 12 documents was moved, but the learned trial court dismissed the application on 25.4.89 and observed that documents were available with him before filing the suit. The defendant filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 on 30.5.1989 for amendment of issue which was ultimately withdrawn but during the pendency of the application, on 25.7.1987, the plaintiff-non-petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 proving that in Clause 3 of the plaint before the word ‘dire necessity’ the words ‘reasonable and bonafide necessity’ be inserted. On 26.8.1989, this amendment was allowed on cost. The defendant-petitioner filed some documents on 7.8.1989 and 22.8.1989 and thereafter written statement but the trial court rejected the prayer regarding taking of documents on record as they were rejected earlier considering them not relevant but at the same time observed in the order dated 8.11.1989 that they can be considered only on an application filed under order 13 Rules 1 & 2 at the proper stage.
3. Mr. Shrimali, the learned Counsel for the defendant petitioner has submitted that the defendant has a right to produce documents alongwith written statements. He has placed reliance on M/s. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Bhilwara v. M/s. Rajasthan Textile Industries AIR 1987 Raj. 60, Ramchandra v. Mahendra Singh AIR 1980 Raj. 4 and Miss T.N.Mohan v. V. Kannan AIR 1984 Mad 14, and Laxmi Ind v. Mangilal (C.R. 372/85) decided on 15.10.1985.
4. Mr. D. Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that the defendant-petitioner in the garb of amendment of written statement could not file documents, as they were being dismissed earlier. He has also submitted that the observation of the trial court that the defendant will be free to move application under Order 13 Rules 1 & 2 at the relevant time is erroneous. He has further submitted that petitioner has moved application to delay the proceedings and only with a view to have a fresh trial as the case is already at final stage. He has placed reliance on The Managing Director Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad .
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the case law and also perused the impugned order. Certainly once the amendment in the plaint is allowed the defendant has a right to file written statement and documents as per Order 8 Rule 2 CPC but in the instant case the same documents were dis-allowed by the court and his application under Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 was dismissed earlier. It is pertinent to note that in the present case so far as amendment in the plaint is concerned though as per averment in the plaint the word used is ‘dire necessity’ (Sakht Jarurat) but the issue of existence of ‘reasonable and bonafide necessity’ is framed. The parties were fully aware of the fact and the controversy, led their evidence on the basis of issue. The case is at final stage under the circumstances, the aforesaid amendment which was lateron allowed is of a formal nature and in my view the defendant cannot claim his right to produce the documents, which were earlier rejected by the trial court as they were considered not relevant for deciding the issue and filed at belated stage, even not mentioned in the list. That apart now no evidence is required to be recorded as the case is at final stage. Thus the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not helpful and the case, Laxmi Industries v. Mangilal (Civil Revision No. 372/85) decided on 15.10.85, is not applicable to the facts of this case. As in that case permission for other documents was allowed but rejected two documents mentioned in list, he moved an amendment application which was allowed after amendment of the written statement additional issue was framed basing their case upon two documents in question. The defendant desired to prove the two documents, objections were raised as the documents were refused by earlier order of the trial court. Thus the revision was allowed. Under the circumstances of the case and as discussed above, the learned trial court while rejecting the application has not acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction so as to call for any interference. Mr. Maheshwari, submits that the case is pending since 1984 and it is at final stage and he will not lead any evidence, so direction be issued to fix some date.
6. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed, However, it is expected that the learned trial court will decide the matter expeditiously.