1. Heard finally by consent. Rule returnable forthwith.

2. Mr. J. Cardozo, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of the contesting respondent no.1 on merits.

3. Both these petitions are connected with each other and challenge trial Courts orders dated 2.8.2013 rejecting the applications filed under Order 14 Rule 3 of CPC for production of documents on identical grounds and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. After hearing both sides, the only point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is:-

Whether the orders dated 2.8.2013, rejecting production of additional documents are so perverse and arbitrary as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

5. On going through the impugned orders, it is seen that the only reason stated therein is that one of the documents that was sought to be produced in evidence, a plan drawn in the year 1982, did not find any mention in the plaint and this plan also did not appear to be relied upon by the plaintiffs/petitioners, as seen from the averments in the plaint.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this plan was forming a part of the plaint and it is specifically mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint that it is annexed to the plaint at Exh. A. He submits that there is no mention of the year in which this plan was prepared and also the name of the engineer who had drawn this plan. But, the fact remains that it was the same plan which was drawn in the year 1982 by Engineer Suhas Naik. He further submits, when this plan was not allowed to be produced on the ground that it was not a signed plan, it became necessary for the plaintiffs to get prepared the same plan together with the report from the concerned Engineer. He further submits that the suits of the plaintiffs/petitioners are based upon the case that these respondents are causing obstruction in the suit property and, therefore, the plan of the suit property assumes importance as without the plan, it would not be possible for the plaintiffs to prove their case. He also submits that this is not a case wherein any attempt has been made by the petitioners to fill up the lacuna. He further submits that these aspects have not been considered by the trial Court which has resulted in the unreasoned and arbitrary orders passed on 2.8.2013.

7. Shri J. Cardozo, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that no fault can be found with the impugned orders as there has been no reference in the plaint to the documents sought to be produced in evidence subsequently. He has invited my attention to the admission given by the plaintiffs in cross examination which indicates that plaintiffs/petitioners did not even remember the name of the person or surveyor who had drawn up the plan. He submits that this admission would show that now the petitioners by way of an after thought are only trying to fill up the lacuna in the case. He has also, during the course of arguments, placed on record copies of some documents which are copies of the depositions and copy of the application filed on 7.1.2014 regarding grant of permission for recalling of PW2 Suhas Naik and for reopening his evidence for the limited purpose of proving the plan at Exh.A. By referring to the documents, he submits that conduct of the petitioners is not bonafide and on this count also, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that this is not a case wherein this Court could and should exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India as the error, if at all there be, is capable of being corrected in appeal or revision, as the case may be. For this submission, he places his reliance upon the law laid down in this regard by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors, 2006 SCC 675 and also in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra