(1.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/defendant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.
(2.) The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Trial Court on the applications, I.A. Nos. 8 and 9 filed seeking amendment of the pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and production of additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which are produced as per Annexure - 'A'.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/defendant during the course of her arguments submitted that when the suit was filed furnishing the boundaries to the suit schedule property, the writ petitioner/defendant in the written statement took the contention that the boundaries are not correct. Hence, disputed the identity of the suit schedule property. The learned counsel further submitted that looking into the materials placed on record before the Trial Court, there are five boundaries came on record in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence, she submitted that because of these reasons, after conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. An appeal was preferred challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and in the appeal, two applications were filed, i.e., seeking amendment of the pleading and production of additional evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the First Appellate Court has not at all discussed anything to allow the said applications except stating that it is necessary in the larger interest of full and complete justice to the parties. Hence, learned counsel submitted that the said applications were filed at the belated stage, the applicant/appellant has to make out a case. Hence, she submitted that the order is illegal and is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.