JUDGMENT :

N.J. Jamadar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. All these Petitions arise out of the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panvel, in Special Civil Suit No.140 of 2008 and since the issues raised in each of the Petitions are intermingled, all these Petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The background facts leading to these petitions can be summerized as under :

3.1 Smt. Akkabai Shantaram Patil (D1), Parvati Gana Patil (D2), Bhagwan Krushna Bhagat (D3) and Smt. Shevantibai Ashok Bhagat (D6) were the project affected persons. The lands held by these Defendants was acquired by CIDCO for new town development. In lieu of the acquisition of the lands, the land holders were, inter alia, entitled to a developed plot under 12.5% scheme. The Petitioner – Defendant No.9 claims that, on 21 May 2005, Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 had agreed to transfer the said plot, to be allotted to them, in favour of the Petitioner. As Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 did not transfer the plot as agreed, the Petitioner instituted a suit being SCS No.85 of 2005, wherein the consent decree came to be passed on 27 September 2005. In the meanwhile, on 5 February 2006, Defendant Nos.1 to 6 allegedly executed an Agreement in favour of the Plaintiff – Respondent No.1, to sell the very same plot.

3.2 Eventually, the Respondent No.1 instituted a suit for specific performance of the agreement against Defendant Nos.1 to 6 seeking a declaration that the decree passed in SCS No.85 of 2005 and the subsequent instruments executed on the strength of the said decree were not binding on the Plaintiff; for specific performance of the contract contained in the Agreement dated 5 February 2006 and for consequential reliefs. On 18 July 2016, the Petitioner came to be impleaded as Defendant No.9 in the said suit. 3.3 The Petitioner filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground of bar of limitation and absence of cause of action. As the trial Court rejected the said application, the Petitioner preferred a Revision before this Court. By an order dated 23 April 2024, the Revision application came to be disposed, keeping all the contentions of the parties open.

3.4 Respondent No.1, thereafter, preferred an application for amendment in the plaint. The said application was also allowed by the trial Court. In Writ Petition No.9801 of 2019, this Court declined to interfere with the said order opining that, it would be open for the Petitioner to raise the issue of limitation at the appropriate stage.

3.5 Eventually, the parties led evidence. After the evidence of the Plaintiff and Defendants was closed, the Plaintiff (R1) sought permission to produce documents. By an order dated 6 February 2026, impugned in WP No.2457 of 2026, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to allow the application for production of documents observing that the documents which were sought to be produced were certified copies of the affidavits and documents in Civil Misc. Application No.268 of 2017 filed by the legal heirs of Akkatai Patil (D1) for grant of heirship certificate, and, thus, those documents appeared to be relevant for adjudicating the controversy between the parties. However, permission to adduce additional evidence was not granted by the learned Civil Judge.

3.6 The Petitioner, thereafter, filed an application seeking permission to cross- examine the Plaintiff (R1), in the wake of the order passed by the Trial Court on 6 February 2026 permitting the Plaintiff to produce the documents on record.

3.7 By an order dated 10 February 2026, learned Civil Judge rejected the application observing that, no purpose would be served by allowing Defendant No.9 to cross-examine the Plaintiff as the latter was not the author of the documents which were produced pursuant to the order passed by t