Courts can entertain a petition against a subsequent order if setting aside the first order would render the subsequent order invalid. Courts may interfere with orders permitting the production of documents after trial commencement if there is no clear case for a change of circumstances.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr G. Agni learned counsel for the Petitioners, and Mr Y. D'Souza learned counsel for the Respondents (contesting partiesoriginal plaintiffs ).

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the order dtd. 21/1/2020 and order dtd. 16/11/2021 refusing to review the order dtd. 21/1/2020. Technically, this Court need not have entertained the petition against the second order. However, if the first order is set aside, the second order falls.

4. The impugned orders permit the original plaintiffs to produce on record the following documents after commencing the trial.

(a) Copy of Survey Plan dtd. 8/8/2018 of Survey No.367 situated in Village Velsao.

(b) 2 Photographs of ancestral house well taken on 8/8/2018.

(c) 1 Photograph taken in the year 1983.

(d) 1 Photograph taken on 22/12/2012.

(e) 1 Photograph of ancestral house well taken on 14/8/2018.

(f) 1 Photograph of ancestral house well taken on 15/8/2018

(g) 1 Photograph of ancestral house well taken on 17/8/2018.

(h) Certified copy of terms of Compromise Order dated 07041993 in I.P. 051989.

(i) Notarised copy of Indenture reduced to writing between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants No.12 and 13.

5. In so far as the document at (i), the Notarised copy of Indenture reduced in writing between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants No.12 and 13 is concerned, the record bears out that the original Plaintiffs made two attempts to produce this document on record. However, both these attempts were turned down by the trial Court vide orders dtd. 15/10/2015 and 22/9/2016. Accordingly, the impugned order dtd. 21/1/2020, without taking proper cognizance of these orders, has now been granted leave.

6. After it was pointed out to the trial Court that such leave had already been rejected vide the above two orders, the trial Court declined to exercise review jurisdiction by reasoning that this might be an error but not an error apparent on the face of the record.

7. Mr D'Souza, however, contended that the circumstances have changed since the making of the orders dtd. 15/10/2015 and 22/9/2016. He submits that it is because of these changed circumstances the leave was granted. He pointed out that leave was basically refused because the document was insufficiently stamped. He submits that this defect is curable.

8. As of now, the defect of short stamping is not cured. As and when the same is cured, the original plaintiffs could apply to the Court for admission of this document. At that stage, the original plaintiffs could make out their case for a change of circumstances, if any. However, the trial Court was not justified in allowing the production of the above document given the two orders dtd. 15/10/2015 and 22/9/2016 in the same matter, in the absence of any clear case for the change of circumstances.

9. Therefore, the impugned order is interfered with to the extent it permits the production of notarised copy of Indenture reduced in writing between the plaintiffs and defendants No.12 and 13. Accordingly, there shall be no leave for the production of this document.

10. In so far as the other documents are concerned, the trial Court has exercised its discretion. However, the trial Court should have imposed some costs on the original plaintiffs because the production of such documents after the commencement of the trial is bound to cause prejudice to the Petitioners herein. Accordingly, the trial in the suit will also be prolonged for these reasons.

11. Accordingly, the original plaintiffs are directed to pay costs of Rs. 10, 000- to the Petitioners within four weeks. Mr D'Souza points out that after the suit was instituted, the plaint was amended twice. He points out that such an amendment was allowed after the trial commenced. He points out that the Petitioners raised even the counter-claim. He submits that the production of these documents was necessitated for these re