The petitioner/plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No.2259/2013 is

before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, questioning the order dated 08.12.2022 by which,

I.A.Nos.13 to 20 are rejected.

- 3 -

I.A.No.13 is filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to

re-open and recall the order dated 07.10.2021 and permit

the plaintiff No.2 to lead further chief examination;

I.ANo.14 is filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking

permission to further cross-examine P.W.1; I.A.No.15 is

filed under Order VII Rule 14(2) and(3) read with Section

151 of CPC seeking to produce the documents stated

therein; I.A.No.16 is filed under Order XVI Rules 2 and 3

of CPC seeking permission to furnish list of witnesses,

I.A.Nos.17 and 18 are filed under Order XVI Rule 7 and 15

of CPC seeking permission to furnish list of documents;

I.A.No.19 is filed under Order XVI Rules 7 and 15 of CPC

seeking

to

direct

Branch

Manager

of

UCO

Bank,

Malleswaram Branch, to give evidence about the certified

soft copy of the bank statement for the period from

07.01.2008 to 06.12.2021 and I.A.No.20 is filed under

Section 151 of CPC praying for a direction to deliver the

key of the schedule “B” property.

- 4 -

Heard

learned

counsel

Sri.K.S.Chandrahasa

for

petitioner/plaintiffs No.2; learned counsel Smt.R.Radha for

respondents No.3 and 4 and Sri.Ian Levis, learned counsel

for respondent No.5. Perused the writ petition papers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Chandrahasa

would submit that after defendant’s evidence, when the

matter was at the stage of further examination of

plaintiffs, petitioner/plaintiff No.2 filed I.A.Nos.13 to 20 as

stated above to recall, re-open, seeking permission to

further examine P.W.1, production of documents, list of

witnesses, to summon Branch Manager of UCO Bank and

seeking direction to the defendants to handover key of the

“B” schedule property. Learned counsel would submit that

the petitioner/plaintiff No.2 had placed on record certain

documents which are listed in I.A.No.15 i.e., documents at

Sl.Nos.2 to 7. But, during the course of cross-

examination,

the

defendants

raised

doubt

on

the

genuineness of those documents and to overcome the said

apprehension,

the

petitioner/plaintiffs

obtained

fresh

- 5 -

certified copies of those documents and sought permission

to produce those documents under I.A.No.15. Learned

counsel would submit that production of those documents

is very much necessary to erase the confusion created by

the defendants in the mind of the Court. Further, learned

counsel would submit that rejection of I.As filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff No.2 only on the ground that the

applications are filed to recall, seeking permission to

further examine P.W.1 and to produce documents only to

fill up the lacuna in the evidence and deposition in the

cross-examination. Learned counsel would further submit

that if the petitioner/plaintiff No.2 is permitted to produce

the documents listed under I.A.No.15 and to lead further

evidence, it would not fill the lacuna but it would assist the

Court in proper adjudication of the dispute between the

parties. Learned counsel with reference to I.A.Nos.16 to

19 would submit that those witnesses listed therein would

be necessary and the Branch Manager of UCO Bank whose

presence would be necessary to identify the documents

produced

along

with

I.A.No.15

and

to

prove

the

- 6 -

genuineness

of

those

documents.

With

regard

to

I.A.No.20, learned counsel would submit that the plaintiff

No.2 sought direction to the defendants to handover Key

of the schedule ‘B’ property so as to enable the plaintiff

No.2 to reside in the said premises as the premises is

vacant. Learned counsel would submit that he returned

from U.S. and as he is not having place to reside, he

sought direction to handover the key of schedule ‘B’

premises which was vacant.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would support the order passed by the trial

Court and would submit that those applications were f