- (1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have impugned two orders dated 15th September, 2006 and 13th September, 2006 whereby the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.), Karauli dismissed the application of the petitioners-defendants filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of CPC, respectively and implored to quash and set aside both the orders.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.
(3.) So far as the order dated 13th September, 2006 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that Gram Panchayat Kailadevi issued a letter in writing stating that Gram Panchayat had never issued any plan to the respondent-plaintiff and thus, the petitioners/defendants implored the Court to take this letter on record. The learned trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the evidence of both the parties had been recorded and the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the plaintiff in rebuttal and at that stage, the petitioners-defendants could not be permitted to produce the documentary evidence.;