ABDULRAJAK AND ORS. Vs. ABDUL RAHIMAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashok S. Kinagi, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners/defendants. Respondents are served and unrepresented. Perused the records.

(2.) Defendants in O.S. No. 54/2006 filed an application in I.A. No. 12 under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of C.P.C. seeking permission to produce documents indicated in the list enclosed to said application. By order dated 01.08.2015 - Annexure -F, said application has been rejected on the ground that without prayer for reopening of the case, said application is not maintainable and also on the ground that it has been filed to drag on the proceedings. Thereafter, three applications came to be filed i.e., I.A. No. 13 for appointment of City Surveyor as Court Commissioner for local inspection of suit property CTS Nos. 580/1B and 580/2 and I.A. Nos. 14 and 15 for recall of DW.1 and for production of documents. These three applications came to be rejected by order dated 07.11.2015 - Annexure -N and same is impugned in these writ petitions.

(3.) It is the contention of learned Advocate appearing for petitioners/defendants that trial Court ought to have extended an opportunity to defendants to place the documents in question to establish their title of and not granting an opportunity to defendants to produce these documents has prejudiced the rights of defendants. Hence, he prays for writ petitions being allowed by quashing the impugned order.