ORDER

1. Heard on IA No.484 of 2023 which is an application for amendment in the memo of petition. Keeping in view the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

2. Necessary amendment be carried out in the memo of petition during the course of the day. Accordingly, IA No.484/2023 stands disposed of.

3. This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the orders dated 23.7.2021, and 3.8.2021, passed in Civil Suit No.99-A/2018 and Civil Suit No.100-A/2018 as both the suits have been consolidated in the trial Court by First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Badnagar, District - Ujjain (MP).

4. By order dated 23.7.2021, the learned Judge of the trial Court has recalled its earlier order dated 7.12.2019 whereby, at the instance of the plaintiffs, it was directed to produce the service record of one Prabhakar Shastri, and vide order dated 3.8.2021, the plaintiffs right to lead further evidence has been closed on the ground that the suit is pending since last more than 20 years and the plaintiffs have still not completed their evidence.

5. In brief, the facts of the case are that the present civil suit was filed by the original plaintiffs as regards partition, declaration and permanent injunction, and when the suit was fixed for plaintiffs evidence in the year 2019, an application was filed on their behalf seeking production of certain documents under Order 16 rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for 6 calling the record of plaintiff's ancestor namely; Shri Prabhakar Shastri who was a Class-3 employee according to the plaintiff as the said Shri Shastri could not have purchased the property from his own funds. The aforesaid application was allowed by the learned Judge of the trial Court on 7.12.2019, and the matter was fixed before the trial Court for production of the aforesaid record. Thereafter, the matter was fixed before the trial Court on many occasions for production of the aforesaid document but till date they have not been produced despite process-fee has been paid by the plaintiffs.

6. The learned judge of the trial Court, taking note of the directions issued by this Court regarding expeditious disposal of old civil suits, vide its order dated 23.7.2021, has decided to recall its earlier order dated 7.12.2019 for calling of record of Shri Shashtri, and directed the plaintiffs to submit certified copies of the record as the record which is being called is also a public document. Subsequently, vide order dated 3.8.2021 right of the plaintiff to led evidence has also been closed taking into consideration the fact that the case is pending since last 20 years.

7. Counsel for the petitioners has assailed both the aforesaid orders on the ground that the impugned order dated 23.7.2021 is virtually the orders of review of Civil Court's earlier order which is not permissible under the law. It is submitted that only on the ground that the High Court has directed the Civil Court to expedite the matter, such an illegal order of recalling earlier order cannot be passed by the civil court especially when it was not even challenged by the defendants. It is also submitted that similarly, order dated 3.8.2021 closing the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence is also bad in law as the matter was pending before the Civil Court for production of certain document and in the midway, without any error on the part of the plaintiff, even when the documents have not been produced before the Civil Court, the right of plaintiffs to lead further evidence has been closed. Thus, it is submitted that both the orders are liable to be set-aside.

8. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the application and submits that no illegality has been committed by the Courts below for the reason that the defendants seek to examine only two witnesses namely Manorama @ Seema Rani and Bhagwati Prasad. The age of Seema Rani is mentioned as 58 years in the present petition, wh