Review petitions cannot challenge prior appellate court directions unless clear procedural errors are demonstrated.

ORAL ORDER

1. This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC seeking to review the order dated 27.03.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.8881/2025.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1963/2002 on the file of XXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The said suit has been filed for eviction. After completion of pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed issues and posted the matter for evidence. The plaintiffs led evidence through Special Power of Attorney holder, namely, Sri.Vallabh D. Radhanpura as PW-1. In chief-examination, PW-1 has marked two title deeds i.e., Ex.O1 dated 07.08.1918 and Ex.O2 dated 03.10.1949 and the same were permitted to be marked as such, subject to the objections to be filed by the defendant.

Later, the defendant filed objections. Since marking of the documents was objected by the defendant, the said documents were marked as Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 on 14.07.2016 for the purpose of identification. Thereafter, the Trial Court by order dated 21.07.2017 upheld the objection filed by the defendant and Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 were taken as not admissible in evidence. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed W.P.No.35358/2017 before this Court. This Court by order dated 03.07.2019 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and held that the Trial Court shall admit the subject documents in evidence and reserved liberty to the defendant to lead further evidence either by examining/further examining or further cross examining any witness or by producing any document, as may be required for the due adjudication of the lis. Thereafter, the Trial Court by order dated 21.11.2024 has admitted the documents i.e., Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 and marked as Ex.P-38 and Ex.P-

39 respectively. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant approached this Court in W.P.No.8881/2025. This Court by order dated 27.03.2025 dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present review petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has contended that after this Court in W.P.No.35358/2017 directed the Trial Court to admit the documents i.e., Ex.O1 and Ex.O2, the Trial Court without following the procedure prescribed under Order XIII Rule 4 of CPC and Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC has suo-moto marked the said documents as Ex.P38 and Ex.P39. The same is contrary to the said provisions of law. He further contended that the documents have to be marked after witness entering into the witness box and only in presence of the witness, the documents have to be marked. In the present case, the witness has not entered the witness box and Trial Court has suo-moto marked the said documents and they are not admissible in evidence. The order of the Trial Court allowing to mark the documents as Ex.P38 and Ex.P39, is liable to be set aside. The same was not brought to the notice of this Court while disposing W.P.No.8881/2025. Therefore, the order dated 27.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.8881/2025 is required to be recalled.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs has contended that the documents have been marked by PW-1 by entering into the witness box on 14.07.2016 itself as Ex.O1 and Ex.O2. Since the defendant had objected, the Trial Court has accepted the objections and the said documents have not been admitted in evidence. However, this Court by order dated 03.07.2019 allowed the writ petition i.e., W.P.No.35358/2017 filed by the