JUDGMENT :

S.G. Pandit, J.

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25.04.2019 passed in R.A.No.123/2014 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, whereby additional documents not shown in the list appended to the applications, I.A.Nos.5, 11 and 12 are allowed to be marked.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.193/1992 filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from entering upon the suit schedule land "Nava Vrindavana Gadde" or interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment thereof in any way, and or interfering or disturbing with the performance of Annual Aradhana of H.H.Padmanabha Theertharu, Sri.H.H. Kavindra Theertharu and Sri.H.H. Vageesha Theertharu.

3. After trial the suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 18.06.2011. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed R.A.No.123/2014 before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Dharwad. The said Regular Appeal was allowed by judgment dated 22.04.2015. The decree passed in R.A.No.123/2014 reads as follows:

"The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part. Subject to the right, if any, of the Defendant Mutt to perform Aradhanas and Poojas of the Vrindavanas in the suit property, the defendant is restrained by way of Perpetual Injunction from interfering with the plaintiff Mutt's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is hereby clarified that the above said raider shall not be construed as declaring the right of the Defendant Mutt to perform Aradhanas and Poojas."

4. Aggrieved by the judgment passed in R.A.No.123/2014, the defendant/respondent herein filed RSA No.100446/2015 before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 14.11.2017 allowed the appeal and also applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and remanded the matter to the trial Court directing to allow the additional evidence and to allow the parties to prove and disprove the same in accordance with law and then re-decide the suit giving its findings in the light of such additional evidence. Aggrieved by the said remand order, the petitioner herein i.e. the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No.9333/2018 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said Civil Appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 26.09.2018, wherein the judgment of the high Court was modified to the effect that the appeal was restored to the file of the High Court to its original number. The High Court was directed to frame points on which the additional evidence is allowed to be produced and directing the First Appellate Court to take the additional evidence on record in accordance with law and then return the evidence to the High Court together with its findings thereon and the reasons thereof. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 23.01.2019 framed four points for determination by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the said order by which four points were framed for consideration by the First Appellate Court, the defendants/respondents herein filed Civil Appeal No.2027/2019 before the Hon'bel Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 25.02.2019 modified the order of this Court and restricted the points for determination to two i.e. Point No.(i) and point No. iv) framed by the High Court without disturbing the order of the High Court.

5. In pursuance to the above said proceedings, the parties appeared before the First Appellate Court to lead evidence. During the course of the evidence, the defendant/ respondent herein intended to mark documents other than the documents listed in the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The same was opposed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein contending that only those documents which are enclosed to the applications i.e. I.A.Nos.5, 11 and 12 could be marked and no other documents could be marked. The learned First Appellate Judge under the impugned order permitted the defendant/respondent herein to mark all th