ORDER :

(Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.)

This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 (Annex-8) passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in original suit no.30/2012 may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently, the application preferred by the petitioner may kindly be allowed as prayed for.

II. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

III. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court are that the respondent-plaintiff preferred a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the present petitioners, before the learned District Court, Hanumangarh; the written statement was filed by the defendants therein, and the issues were framed by the learned court below on 01.04.2017.

2.1 During pendency of the suit, the petitioners submitted an application for taking certain additional documents on record, which included the copy of Civil Suit No.221/2012 pending adjudication before the learned District Judge, Tees Hajari Court, Delhi; the said application was allowed by the learned trial court on 01.12.2018. The petitioners thereafter, moved an application under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC on 17.05.2019 to recall the respondent-plaintiff for cross examination regarding the documents, which were allowed to be brought on record by the learned trial court vide its order dated 01.12.2018. The said application under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC however, was rejected by the learned trial court vide the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 was rejected, on the ground of the same being without any substance.

3. Mr. Suniel Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial court has accepted the petitioner's application to bring on record the documents vide order dated 01.12.2018, whereupon he immediately moved an application under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC to cross-examine the respondent-plaintiff regarding such documents, and thus, the said application ought to have been allowed, in the best interest of justice.

3.1. He further submits that there is no delay in filing such application, which was filed to clarify the position. He also submits that as far as the protraction of the trial is concerned, the parties may be directed to appear on a particular date before the learned trial court and the learned trial court be directed to complete the cross-examination of both the parties regarding the freshly added documents permitted to be brought on record vide order dated 01.12.2018.

4. Per contra, Mr. C.P. Soni and Mr. Sravan Kumar Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff vehemently opposed the same, on count of the fact that the Order 18, Rule 17 CPC could not have been invoked by the learned trial court to fill-in the lacuna, which were created due to the inaction on the part of the petitioners.

4.1 They further submit that the documents in question have been in existence since 2012 and the petitioners should have been diligent enough to bring the same on record, at an earlier point of time.

4.2. They also submits that once the documents were taken on record on 01.12.2018, then the petitioners should have moved the application under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC, if at all they wanted to move within time, but he has consciously allowed his own examination to be over, and moved such application under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC after the nece