Dinesh Mehta, J.

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.4.2017, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 10 (A) read with Order 13, Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts for adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit for redemption of mortgage for recovery of sum of Rs. 49,000/-, against the defendant/petitioner in the year 2001.

3. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the petitioner moved an application dated 30.3.2017, under Order 8, Rule 1 (A) and Order 13, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia seeking leave to place will dated 23.2.1995 executed by the said plaintiff Smt. Shanta Devi and her husband Basantlal Jain and a sale deed executed by the beneficiary of said will on record.

4. The reasons for delay in filing the said application as indicated in the application were that the petitioner had informed his counsel about such will and sale deed, who could not produce the same on account of his prolonged disease. The said application was objected to by the plaintiff on various grounds, including the relevance of the will and the sale deed and also on the ground of delay in filing the same.

5. The learned Trial Court rejected such application filed by the petitioner/defendant vide the order impugned, passed on 24.4.2017.

6. He further contended that as a result of rejection of the application, serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the appropriate cost for the inconvenience and the delay caused in the matter.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the suit in question had been filed way back in the year 2001 and written statement had been filed by the petitioner on 04.10.2002.

8. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties reveal that no reference of the will dated 23.2.1995 and the sale deed in question was made by the petitioner in the written statement. Even the application dated 30.3.2017, filed by the petitioner/defendant was bereft of any reason, much less cogent reasons, explaining the delay and the necessity of such documents, sought to have been placed on record.

9. A look at the application leaves no room for doubt that it lacks seriousness and the same is a casual effort, guided by the idea of prolonging the litigation.

10. The Trial Court has committed no error of law, in rejecting the subject application, vide its order impugned dated 24.4.2017. I find no substance and force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.