The petitioner/plaintiff has filed these writ petitions against the order dated 06.07.2017 on I.A.Nos.13, 14 and 15 made in O.S.No.4864/2003 rejecting the applications filed to recall, re-open and under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The petitioner who is the plaintiff before the trial Court filed suit for declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 08.11.2001 alleged to have been executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and direct the Sub Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk to make a note of the said cancellation in its concerned books of entry and CD maintained in his office and direct the defendant to quit and deliver vacant physical possession of suit schedule property of the plaintiff and direct the defendant to pay mesne profit of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of suit till realization.

3. The petitioner contends that she is in possession of the suit schedule property exercising all rights of ownership. The katha also changed in the name of the petitioner in respect of suit schedule property by the concerned Gram Panchayat. The petitioner also paid betterment charges to the BBMP through the defendant. The defendant has no right, title and interest in the suit property and had created some documents in order to cheat and deprive the plaintiff’s right over the suit property etc., therefore, the plaintiff/petitioner filed the suit for the relief prayed for.

4. The defendant No.1 filed the written statement and denied the plaint averments and contended that defendant No.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the plaintiff having extinguished all her rights, has no claim upon the property belonging to the defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by the limitation etc., sought for dismissal of the suit. The 2nd defendant also filed the written statement contending that first defendant has mortgaged the property in favour of 2nd defendant and 2nd defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. After completion of the evidence, when the matter was posted for arguments, at that stage the plaintiff filed three applications – I.A.No.13 filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to re-call and reopen the case of plaintiff and permit her to lead further evidence, I.A.No.14 under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to permit the plaintiff to produce the original documents and I.A.No.15 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to re-call PW1 for further examination-in-chief contending that though the suit was filed in the year 2003 to declare the sale deed dated 08.11.2001 alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 is null and void and also for possession. When the affidavit of evidence was filed she got marked certain documents and she has been subjected for cross-examination and she never executed the alleged sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 created the sale deed by playing fraud and the plaintiff has denied the execution of aforesaid document. Therefore, she wanted to produce the sale deed executed by Gangamuniyappa and others in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the application to permit her to produce the sale deed and if the application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants.

6. The said application was resisted by the defendants by filing their objections contending that the application filed for production of document is not connected to the suit and the plaintiff’s evidence and pleading are contradictory. The application filed is highly belated without any valid and justifiable grounds and sought for dismissal of the application. The trial Court after considering the applications and