ORDER :

Ganesh Ram Meena, J.

The petitioner/ defendant- Ramesh is aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge No.04, Bharatpur (for short 'the trial court') in O.S. No. 1/2017, dismissing his application filed by him under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) read with section 151 CPC.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondents /plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioner/ defendant-Ramesh and proforma respondents (in this petition) stating that the land in question is a part of Khasra No. 437 which is recorded in their khatedari. However, the said land in question is being used as 'Bada' and the land is situated in abadi area. It was stated in the plaint that the land in question is in their ownership and possession and the defendants have no concern with the land in question. It was further stated in the plaint that the defendants have threatened them to dispossess from the suit property and, therefore, the present suit has been filed by them.

3. On 25.09.2018 petitioner/ defendant- Ramesh and proforma respondents filed an application under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) read with section 151 CPC for taking certain documents on record including the affidavits and cross-examination of Hotilal recorded in Civil Suit No. 19/2015, Site Commissioner's Report in case of Ramesh v. Phatte Civil Suit No. 226/11, affidavit and cross-examination of Niranjan Singh in Civil Suit No.19/15, in Civil suit No. 15/15 affidavit and cross-examination of Mahendra etc.

4. Reply to the application of the petitioner/ defendant-Ramesh and proforma respondents was filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs stating that the defendants have not stated a word in the application that how the documents, which they sought to be taken on record, are relevant for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. It was prayed on behalf of them respondents/plaintiffs to dismiss the application filed by them.

5. The trial court considering the submissions of both the counsels appearing for the parties, dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) read with section 151 CPC observing that they have not uttered a word that how these documents which are sought to be taken on record, are relevant for proper adjudication of the dispute agitated in the suit.

6. Counsel appearing for the present petitioner/ defendant-Ramesh submits that the documents which are sought to be taken on record are relevant for proving the case and, therefore, the application ought to have been allowed in the interest of justice. He further submits that the said documents are the part of other suit proceedings between the same parties.

7. Counsel appearing for the respondents/ plaintiffs submits that the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner /defendant- Ramesh and the proforma respondents because the defendants have not uttered a word in their application that how these documents which are sought to be taken on record are relevant for proper adjudication of the issue.

8. Heard. Considered.

9. The provisions of Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC provides for taking certain documents on record produced by the defendant with the leave of the Court. The defendants did not set out any good and reasonable ground before the trial court to exercise its discretion in allowing the application filed by them under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) read with section 151 CPC. In case the applicant fails to submit the relevancy of the documents, the trial court can refuse to exercise its discretion and deny leave to take such documents on record.

10. Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC states that where the document is not produced a