JUDGMENT :

1. These writ petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6171/2023:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition for writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

A] The impugned order dated 06.04.2023 [Annex.5] passed by the Trial Court may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

B] Any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be passed in favor of petitioner.”

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16045/2022:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition for writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

A] The impugned order dated 29.09.2022 [Annex.8] passed by the Trial Court may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

B] The trial court may be directed to remove the documents exhibited as Ex.9 to Ex.16 from the record.

Any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be passed in favor of petitioner.”

2. In sum and substance, the identicalness in the factual matrix of both the instant petitions, is that the respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction, eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits against the petitioner-defendant before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Abuparvat, District Sirohi in the year 2015, stating therein that the respondent rented out one shop to the petitioner in the year 2006; rent agreement was executed between the parties for the period from 01.01.2013 to 30.11.2013; thereafter the petitioner neither vacated the premises, nor paid the rent of the premises in question.

3. The marginal variation in the factual matrix of the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16045/2022 is that during the evidence stage, the respondent moved an application for bringing certain documents on record, as the same were public documents under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the petitioner raised the objection regarding the admissibility of the those documents. The learned Court below on 29.09.2022 rejected the objection of the petitioner and permitted the respondent to mark the documents as exhibits no.9 to 16 and proceeded with the examination.

3.1. On 29.09.2022 itself, the petitioner filed an application for permitting him to lay a challenge to the rejection of its objection in regard to admissibility of the aforesaid documents, which are exhibited by the respondent and also sought some time to conduct the cross-examination; the learned Court below however, vide the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 rejected the said application and allowed the respondent to bring the documents on record.

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was seeking time to permit him to assail the order of the learned Court below before the Hon’ble High Court, which was also mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner, but despite the same, the learned Court below in an arbitrary manner passed the impugned order against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

3.2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Court below, while permitting the respondent to mark the documents as exhibits, has completely ignored the provisions of the Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, because the said documents were relating to the previous suit, and were not the public documents as per the aforesaid provision.

3.2.2. In support of such submissions, reliance was placed upon the following judgments:- (a) Baijayanti Nanda Vs Jagannath Mahaprabhu (W.P. (Civil) No. 10286 of 2007, decided on 13.03.2014) passed by Hon’ble High Court of Orissa

(b) Shamlata & Ors. Vs Vishweshwara Tukaram Giripunje & Ors. (Second. Appeal No. 67 of 1996 decided on 29.01.2008) passed by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.

3.3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf o