The Appellants, in both these Appeals from Order, have challenged common order dated 11 February 2013, passed in Special Civil Suit No. 577 of 2010 filed by the Appellants for declaration and injunction and Special Civil Suit No. 628 of 2010 filed by the Respondents for a specific performance, declaration and cancellation of the instruments. The order is against the Appellant in both the matters.

2. The operative part of the impugned order is as under:-

“ORDER

The application Exh. 5 in Spl.C.S.No.577/2010 is hereby rejected.

The status-quo granted by this Court Dt.18/08/2010 is hereby vacated.

The application Exh.5 in Spl.C.S. No. 628/2010 is hereby allowed.

The defendants, their servants, agents etc. are hereby directed not to interfere in the occupation & possession of the suit property to the plaintiff till the decision of the suit.

The defendants, their servants, agents etc. are hereby further directed not to alienate the suit property in any manner till the decision of the suit.

The costs of these applications shall abide by the suits.

The copy of the order be kept in Spl.C.S. No. 577/2010.”

3. The relevant prayers of the Appellants in Special Civil Suit No. 577 of 2010 filed in the month of August 2010 read as under:-

“a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the Suit Development agreement dated 3/8/2007 is bogus, fabricated, forged, fraudulent, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio and the same is ultra virus to the provision of law and the same is without the force of law and not binding upon the Plaintiff.”

…....

“e) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that, the Suit agreement dated 6/6/1988 executed by defendant no.2 with defendant no.16 and 17 is bogus, fabricated, forged, fraudulent, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio and the same is ultra virus to the provision of law and the same is without the force of law and not binding upon the Plaintiff.”

The Respondents are the Defendants in this Suit.

4. The relevant prayers of the Respondents in their Special Civil Suit No. 628 of 2010 filed on 3 September 2010, read as under:-

“a) It be held, declared and decreed that the purported sale deed dated 7th February, 1995 is illegal, bogus, got up and fraudulent documents and be cancelled.

…

c) It be held, declared and decreed that the alleged Agreement dated 15th November, 1989 and/or Power of Attorney dated 20th February, 1990 and alleged agreement dated 19th June, 1992 all are false, fabricated, illegal and bogus documents.

d) The Defendant nos. 2 to 15 be directed to specifically perform the first suit agreement and/or the second suit agreement as the case may be by executing requisite Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Plaintiff no.1 by obtaining requisite N.A. Permission from the N.A. Authority AND/OR such other directions be given to the Defendants nos. 2 to 15 for compliance of their part of First Suit Agreement and/or Second Suit Agreement.

The Appellants are the Defendants in this Suit.

5. There is no dispute that the Trial Court has passed the order of status-quo on 18 August 2010 which was vacated on 11 February 2013, but this Court on 3 May 2013, continued the order of status-quo again. In the result, the order of status-quo has been in force since 18 August 2010, with regard to the common properties in question.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants has submitted referring to the Civil Applications filed in both these Appeals, by invoking Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the CPC”) and thereby contended that the documents referred in the Applications, the compilation from serial Nos. 1 to 23, be permitted to be taken on record of the Suit and the Appeals as those documents go to the root of the matter and specifically the findings given by the learned Judge in paragraph Nos. 14 to 18 about the thumb impressions and the signatures of the real sole owner of the suit property for want of documents/materials. The relevant paragrap