DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout and the impugned order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Bhilwara in Civil Suit No. 135/2012 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC may kindly be ordered to be allowed.

Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.”

2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court are that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for possession under the Specific Relief Act on 29.10.2011 on account of the claim that the defendant had illegally encroached upon the property in question on 21.10.2011. In the said suit, it was claimed that Araji No. 2502, Rakba 1, 1 Bigha 1 Biswa was situated in Bhilwara, and Renu Devi, who was the widow of Devilal Jat, and was khatedar, had transferred the said land to one Ghisulal. The said Ghisulal carved out 18 plots, out of which one plot bearing No. 15 measuring 25 x 40 ft. was sold to Jaan Kanwar, and Jaan Kanwar thereafter sold the same to the present plaintiffs/petitioners.

3. The plaintiffs-petitioners further claimed that on 08.02.2002, the plot in question was regularized by the UIT, while giving Plot No. 44 in place of the old Plot No. 15. In the suit, it was also claimed by the plaintiffs-petitioners that Plot No. 16, as carved out by Ghisulal, was transferred to Shakuntala Devi, and Shakuntala Devi had transferred it to one Neetu Devi, and while making regularization, a new Plot No. 43 instead Plot No. 16, was given by the UIT. Neetu Devi then sold the said plot to one Jagdish Kumar.

4. The respondent-defendant filed a written statement and denied the averments made in the suit, and stated that one Chandra Prakash had purchased the land from khatedar of Araji No. 2502, and from Chandra Prakash, the defendant had purchased the same. In the written statement, the defendant-respondent further claimed that she was owner of Plot No. 86, which was subsequently given to Neelu Devi, and a patta was issued by the UIT in her favour. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a rejoinder, and thereafter, issues were framed by the learned court below.

5. The plaintiffs-petitioners thereafter, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC seeking to produce certain documents, and the respondent-defendant also filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC seeking production of certain documents. Both the applications were allowed by the learned court below on 14.01.2015.

6. The defendant-respondent thereafter, filed another application under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC and under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, which was also allowed by the learned court below on 12.10.2015, while framing the additional issues.

7. The defendant-respondent raised certain objections regarding certain documents sought to be produced by the plaintiffs/petitioners, which were also accepted by the learned court below vide order dated 10.05.2016. Thereafter, on 26.09.2017, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed another application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC seeking to produce certified copies of the documents, regarding which the defendant-respondent had earlier raised an objection. The said application of the plaintiffs-petitioners was also allowed by the learned court below on 10.11.2016.

8. The plaintiffs-petitioners thereafter, on 18.11.2016 and 19.11.2016 had filed yet another application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC before the statements of the plaintiff-petitioners were completed. The said application was also allowed by the learned court below on 05.01.2017.

9. The evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners was completed on 17