The petitioners, by way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 28.5.2012 and 5.9.2012, whereby, the court below has refused to mark exhibits of certain documents, which according to petitioners, were necessary for the determination of the issue involved in the case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments as well as materials placed on record.

3. It appears that in the court below three suits bearing Title Suit No. 55/03, Title Suit No. 63 of 2003 and Title Eviction Suit No. 13/2003 were filed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the sale deed, which is vital documents, was produced in Title Suit No. 63 of 2003 and since the said suit was pending, the petitioner was not in a position to produce the said document in Title Suit No. 55/2003.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions has referred to and relied upon the decisions given in the case of Lakshmi and Anr. Vs. Chinnamaal @ Rayyammal and Ors. reported in 2009(3)JCR 90 (SC) and by referring para 12 of the said judgment submitted that the court below should not ordinarily refused the production and marking of a document on record, which is essential for proving the case by a party. The another decision is also referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners given in the case of Mutar Dhobi Vs. Parbil Dhobi and Ors. reported in 2012(3) JLJR 248. By referring paras 4 to 6 of the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedural technicalities should not come in way of the parties for the production of essential documents which are necessary for the determination of the real issues, involved in the matter.

5. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs submitted that Title Suit is of the year 2003 and ample opportunity was available to the defendants for production of the said documents, however, the said documents were not produced at any early stage and, therefore, the court below rightly and properly rejected the application made by the petitioners- defendants. The learned counsel for the respondents by referring the reasons assigned by the court below submitted that the court below has taken serious note about the conduct of the petitioners-defendants and, thereafter, rejected the application preferred by the petitioners- defendants. The learned counsel for the respondents further pointed out by referring counter affidavit and the order dated 5.9.2012 that the petitioners- defendants preferred review application before the court below but the said review application was also rejected by the court below and this order was not challenged by the petitioner at the time before filing of this petition, though it was well within the knowledge of the petitioners-defendants. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the material fact has been suppressed at the time of filing of this petition. The learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to and relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions:-

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners- defendants is not entitled to get any relief(s) as prayed for. Learned counsel for the respondents by referring one of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners reported in 2009(3) JCR 90(SC) and by referring paras 17(ii) and (iii)of the said judgment submitted that the principles enumerated therein and looking to the conduct of petitioners- defendants, they are not entitled to get any relief(s) as prayed for.

6. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions of the parties, it appears that the application for production and marking of exhibit of sale deed, which was produced in another Title Suit No. 63/2003 was made by the pe