JUDGMENT : V.K. Mathur, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging two separate orders dated 09th March 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No. 03/2012 (63/2007) whereby applications filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC for summoning of persons for production of documents have been rejected. 2. As per relevant facts of the case, respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction. After filing written statement, the petitioner-defendant moved an application for summoning Naravan Jat for the purpose of producing registered sale-deed dated 29th June 1974, which was rejected by the learned court below on 23rd December 2011. The petitioner-defendant preferred a Writ Petition (No. 96/2012), which was dismissed by this Court with the observation that the matter is at the stage of plaintiffs' evidence and the stage has not reached where defendant is to lead his evidence. 3. The petitioner-defendant, during the course of defendant's evidence, again moved two applications under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC for summoning Narayan Jat with original sale deed dated 29th June 1974 and for summoning Iswar and Shivraj sons of Ladu, along with original sale deed dated 19th March 2012, After hearing both sides, the learned court below rejected both the applications vide impugned orders dated 09th March 2013, with the observation that previously application with similar prayer had already been considered, which had been dismissed. Aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 09th March 2013, present writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner-defendant contended that the learned court below ignored observation of this Court in earlier Writ Petition. It was also averred that at the stage of defendant's evidence, the persons are sought to be summoned along with original documents, which arc necessary to prove his case. On the other had, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs averred that the learned trial court has rightly rejected applications of the petitioner-defendant and the applications were filed to delay the proceedings. The learned counsel place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6387 Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shanker Patil. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and material on record of the case. 6. The learned counsel place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6387 Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shanker Patil. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and material on record of the case. 6. The petitioner-defendant has filed the applications during the course the defendant has sought to lead his evidence and in my opinion, the applications for just and proper adjudication of the case ought to be allowed. 7. In this view of the matter, on the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, applications filed by the petitioner-defendant for summoning of persons with relevant original documents ought to be allowed. 8. Consequently, the two impugned orders dated 09th March 2013 are set aside. The learned trial court is directed to summon the respective persons for production of documents as prayed by the petitioner-defendant in the aforesaid applications. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.