ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kshitij P. Vakil on behalf of the petitioners and learned Advocate Mr. Parthiv B. Shah on behalf of the respondents no. 3 and 4. Though served the other respondents have chosen not to appear.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners-original plaintiffs have challenged an order dated 12.10.2021 passed below Exh. 109, Exh. 110 and Exh. 112 in Regular Civil Suit No. 3527 of 2015 by the learned 27th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Vakil on behalf of the petitioners would submit that three different applications had been preferred by the original plaintiffs namely Exh. 109 praying for production of documents more particularly for the purpose of cross-examining defendant no.3, Exh. 110 for the purpose of joining the third party as defendant in the suit property and Exh. 112 for appointment of a Court Commissioner for drawing panchnama of the suit property. Learned Advocate would submit that the learned Civil Court without appreciating the contentions of the petitioners-original plaintiffs had rejected the said applications, which were necessary for the purpose of arriving at a just conclusion by the learned Civil Court in the suit concerned and having regard to the same learned Advocate would request this Court to interfere with the order concerned.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Vakil on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the application below Exh. 109 was for production of document for cross-examination of the defendant no.3 and whereas the learned Civil Court ought not to have rejected the same. It is further submitted that Exh. 110 was for joining of a third party, and whereas it is submitted that such third party had purchased the suit property pending the suit and whereas such third party was required to be joined as a party defendant. It is submitted that without considering the application in its proper perspective learned Civil Court had rejected the same.

It is further submitted that application under Exh. 112 had been preferred for appointing a Court Commissioner to draw panchnama of the property more particularly according to learned Advocate Mr. Vakil as mentioned in the said application, construction was being carried out in the property by the purchaser in question. It is submitted that the learned Civil Court even without appreciating the request of the petitioners in its true spirit had rejected the said application also. Having regard to such submissions learned Advocate Mr. Vakil would request this Court to set aside the impugned order and to grant the prayers made in Exh. 109, Exh. 110 and Exh.112.

5. This petition is vehemently objected to by learned Advocate Mr. Parthiv Shah appearing on behalf of the defendants no. 3 and 4 - respondents no. 3 and 4 herein. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah would submit that no error whatsoever had been committed by the learned Civil Court more particularly according to learned Advocate Mr. Shah, the learned Civil Court had given cogent reasons for rejecting the applications, inasmuch as application below Exh. 109 had been rejected since no particulars were mentioned in the said application, application below Exh. 110 had been rejected on the ground of res judicata and application below Exh. 112 had been rejected on the ground that the plaintiffs had established by cross-examination of defendant no. 3 that the third party has started construction on the suit property and whereas the learned Civil Court had also observed that a Court Commissioner’s report could not be permitted for the purpose of creation of evidence. Having regard to the such submissions learned Advocate Mr. Shah would submit that no interference is called for and this Court may reject the present petition.

6. In rejoinder learned Advocate Mr. Vakil would submit insofar as Exh. 110 that while the learned Civil Court had inter alia rejected the said Exh. on the ground of res judicata and wheres according to learned Advocate, the aspect of res judicata