1. This petition takes exception of the order dated 7.7.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chopda, thereby allowing application Exh.154 filed under Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a) of C.P.C., in R.C.S. No.167 of 2000.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

3. The background facts, leading to file this petition, as disclosed in the petition, are as under:-

The respondent No.1 herein has filed a suit for partition against the petitioner and other respondents herein. The petitioner appeared in the said suit and while he was under cross examination, the respondent No.1 sought to produce documents contending that it were reserved for cross examination of the petitioner. The petitioner had objected to produce the documents for the first in cross, however, the said application was rejected on 25.10.1996. The petitioner had challenged the said order in this Court by filing writ petition No. 869 of 1997 and the said writ petition came to be allowed by this Court holding that no document can be reserved for cross examination of a party.

The respondent No.1, by way of Exh.94 on 13.11.1998, tried to introduce very same documents contending that it were received late. Without hearing the petitioner, the trial Court allowed the production on the same day. The petitioner had challenged the said order by filing C.R.A. No. 6 of 1999, which was disposed of with liberty to file writ petition. The petitioner had accordingly filed writ petition No. 1325 of 2003. This Court had allowed the said writ petition and quashed and set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh decision. The trial Court on 22.3.2005 had rejected the application filed by respondent No.1.

The respondent No.1 filed writ petition No. 5632 of 2005 in this Court challenging the said order. The said writ petition was allowed on 17.6.2009. The petitioner had filed Review Petition No. 171 of 2009 on 10.7.2009, for review of the order dated 17.6.2009, on the ground that the respondent No.1 had suppressed from this Court the order passed in writ petition No. 869 of 1997. This Hon’ble court had allowed the said review petition and the order dated 17.6.2009 was recalled and liberty was granted to respondent No.1 to file fresh application.

Accordingly, the respondent No.1 on 28.3.2011 filed fresh application Exh.154 seeking production of same documents once again. The learned trial court had allowed the said application filed under Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a). Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that considering the order passed by this court in writ petition No. 869 of 1997, the order impugned in this petition, could not have been passed by the Trial Court. It is submitted that this court while deciding the writ petition No.869 of 1997, relying upon the judgment of the Jammu Kashmir High Court in the case of Union of India and Anr Vs. B.D. Sharma, [AIR 1989 NOC 183], held that the parties to the suit cannot be equated with the witness and cannot be confronted with a document by casting surprise upon him. It is submitted that the said writ petition was between the same parties, however, a liberty was granted to the plaintiff to apply for permission to produce documents alongwith the list on record of the case as documents of the plaintiff and if that application is allowed, then the plaintiff may confront the defendant with those documents. Learned counsel also invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in Review Application No. 171 of 2009 in writ petition No. 5632 of 2005 and submitted that this court reviewed and modified the order passed in writ petition No. 5632 of 2005 holding that the judgment and order in writ petition No. 869 of 1997 has attained finality and therefore, it was not open for the trail court to allow the application of the original plaintiff for contradicting the defendant No.1’s version about acquiring the property from his own income. Learned counsel