The petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.225/2012 on the file

of LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at

Bangalore is before this Court against the rejection of I.As

seeking re-opening of the stage, recalling P.W.1 to lead

further additional evidence and seeking permission to

produce additional documentary evidence.

Heard learned senior counsel Sri.G.V.Chandrasekhar

for Ms.Apeksha learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff and

learned

counsel

Sri.V.B.Shivakumar

for

Caveator/

respondents No.1 to 8. Perused the writ petition papers.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting

the I.As filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 151

- 4 -

to re-open the stage, under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to

lead further additional evidence and under Order VII Rule

14 of CPC to produce additional documentary evidence.

Learned counsel would submit that the suit is one for

specific performance of agreement dated 03.12.1989.

When

the

suit

was

set

down

for

judgment,

the

petitioner/plaintiff filed above said applications. The

purpose and object of filing these applications is to mark

the documents listed in the I.A. filed under Order VII Rule

14 of CPC. Learned senior counsel would submit that

those documents would be necessary to establish that the

consideration shown in the agreement was more than the

market value as on the date of entering into agreement.

The documents which are sought to be produced are all

public documents and he submits that no prejudice would

be caused to the other side if this Court permits

production of those documents. Learned senior counsel

would submit that those documents could not be produced

earlier since those documents were seized by CBI. The

petitioner, by letter dated 24.07.2023 to the Special Land

- 5 -

Acquisition Officer (for short “SLAO”), Bengaluru requested

for issuance of documents. On such application, the

documents are made available and immediately thereafter

the application for production of documents along with

application to recall P.W.1 was filed. Learned senior

counsel would submit that since those documents were in

the custody of CBI and despite efforts made by the

petitioner/plaintiff, he could not get those documents. The

documents are absolutely necessary to establish that the

consideration shown in the agreement dated 03.12.1989 is

more than the market value as on that date. Thus, he

prays for allowing the writ petition by quashing impugned

order.

Per

contra, learned counsel Sri.V.B.Shivakumar

opposes the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff and he

supports the order of the trial Court. Learned counsel

would submit that no application would be maintainable

when the suit is set down for judgment. Learned counsel

further submits that the petitioner/plaintiff has not stated

- 6 -

anything with regard to custody of documents and has not

placed any material to establish that the documents were

in the custody of CBI and to establish the efforts of the

petitioner/plaintiff to get those documents prior to

24.07.2023. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ

petition.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on

perusal of the writ petition papers, I decline to exercise

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India that too when the suit is set down for

judgment. Admittedly, the suit is set down for judgment

and at this stage the applications are filed to re-open the

stage,

to

lead

further

evidence

and

also

seeking

permission to produce additional documents. The

application to recall P.W.1. was filed only for the purpose

of marking documents listed under I.A. filed under Order

VII Rule 14 of CPC, which are as follows:

1.Copy of the letter issued to SLAO,

Bangalore dated 24.07.2023.

- 7 -

2.Certified Copy of the Award in No.MIL

LAQ (11) LAC 104.107.120/89-90

3.Certified Copy of the Award Notice.

4.Notarized Copy of the Guidance Value

2011-2012.

5.Cerified Copy o