ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. - (1.) RULE . Mr.Vishwas K.Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Respondents Nos.3 to 5 have chosen not to appear before this Court pursuant to the issuance of notice, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served in issuing notice of Rule to them. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.
(2.) BY preferring this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.08.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Surat, below the applications at Exhibits 53 and 58, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.36 of 2009, whereby, the said applications for production of additional evidence, have been rejected by a common order. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioners, who are the original plaintiffs, instituted Regular Civil Suit No.324 of 2009, against the respondents with a prayer for declaration, permanent injunction, partition and cancellation of a Will. Along with the suit, an application at Ex.5 was preferred with a prayer that the plaintiffs may not be forcibly dispossessed, without due process of law, from the suit property and the defendants may be restrained from selling, transferring or obtaining the suit property during the pendency of the suit. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court, vide order dated 07.03.2009, rejected the application at Ex.5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.36 of 2009, before the District Court, Surat. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners preferred the applications at Exs.53 and 58, praying for permission to produce additional evidence as per the list of documents produced with the applications. Both these applications have been rejected by the impugned order, giving rise to the filing of the present petition.
(3.) MS .Kruti M.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned order dated 24.08.2012, passed by the District Court, Surat, does not contain specific reasons for rejecting the applications. Apart from quoting a paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, 2012 4 Supreme 585, no other reason has been given by the said Court.;