COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.79 of 2006 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle for partition of certain properties, said to be belonging to the family of the plaintiffs, and the defendants therein. The petitioner herein was arrayed as defendant No.2, on the ground that he had purchased certain properties which were the subject matter of the partition suit.

3. The case against the petitioner was that, the petitioner had purchased various pieces of the schedule property from some of the defendants in the suit and the said purchases were far in excess of the share available to the defendants who had sold the property to the petitioner. The written statement was filed by the petitioner, denying all these allegations and contending that the property purchased by the petitioner from the other defendants was within the limits available to such defendants. At the stage of evidence, it appears that the plaintiffs, in the suit, had reserved the right to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the evidence produced by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner adduced evidence and marked some documents. Thereafter, the plaintiffs examined the 2nd plaintiff as P.W.3 and marked Exs.A.12 to A.18 through the said witness. In the course of the cross examination, the petitioner is said to have confronted P.W.3 with documents showing that P.W.3 and his family members had sold away various properties which would go to show that the properties claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit are not available and in any event the suit would fail on that ground. At that stage, the plaintiffs had filed I.A.No.247 of 2020 for deletion of item Nos.8 and 10 of the suit schedule properties and the same was allowed on 11.03.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that these items were removed as the petitioner had sought to confront the witness of the plaintiffs with documents showing that these items of property had been sold by the plaintiffs themselves. In that view of the matter, the petitioner was permitted to file an additional written statement in which the petitioner raised the contention that there cannot be a suit for partial partition and as the plaintiffs themselves had removed two items from the plaint schedule property, the suit would have to fail. On this basis, an additional issue was also framed, on 27.11.2022, on the question of maintainability of a suit for partial partition.

4. The petitioner then moved I.A.No.192 of 2023 and I.A.No.193 of 2023 for permission to produce about 46 documents and for recall of the witness to mark the documents. These applications were filed in April, 2023. The contention of the petitioner, in these applications, was that P.W.3, in his cross examination, refused to allow the documents produced by the petitioner to be marked in the trial by refusing to acknowledge any of the documents and as such, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to mark these documents by producing the certified copies of the registered deeds and encumbrance certificates obtained from the registration authorities. The delay in filing the documents was explained by stating that the said delay was not intentional and that the petitioner had to seek the leave of the Court to produce these documents as P.W.3 had not cooperated with the petitioner and had deliberately taken an obstructionist position to stop the documents from being marked.

5. The trial Court dismissed both the applications by an order dated 10.08.2023. Aggrieved by the said orders of dismissal, the petitioner had approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petitions which are being disposed of by way of this common order.

6. Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that these documents, which were rejected by the trial Court, are essential for the trial in the matter and to demonstrate tha