JUDGMENT : 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The trial Court has rejected the application at Exh.245 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 78 of 1999 for permission to lead oral evidence by the plaintiff to prove the documents which were permitted to be produced by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2014, decided on 16.07.2014. This Court in the said writ petition considered the challenge to the rejection of the application at Exh.236 by the trial Court for grant of permission to produce the documents. The relevant portion of the judgment delivered by this Court is reproduced below. "….Merely because the suit is pending since the year 1999, I think permission for production of documents could not have been refused by the learned trial Judge. It may be for learned trial Judge to refuse exhibiting of the documents on the ground that they were not duly proved according to the law of Evidence. But, to refuse the prayer for production; that too of the documents which, according to the plaintiff, came to his notice on inspection of the Government record and which are in respect of date of birth etc., of the plaintiff. That being so, in the larger interest of justice, to conclude the real controversy between the parties finally, effectively and meaningfully, the impugned order needs to be set aside. Learned trial Judge to allow production of documents on record and may consider them if duly proved or admissible under the provisions of law. With the above observations and directions, the petition is disposed of". 3. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it was not open for the trial Court to refuse the plaintiff to enter the witness box to prove the documents produced on record. The trial Court is at liberty to hold whether the documents produced are proved or not and whether the documents are admissible in evidence. 4. Shri Sadavarte, the learned counsel submits that Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2014 was allowed by this Court on 16.07.2014 even without issuing notice to the respondent and this seems to be an admitted position as Shri Kavimandan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein as well as in Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2014 admits the fact that the notices were not issued by this Court. He submits that it was brought to the notice of this Court while deciding the writ petition that notices were not issued, but this Court passed an order. The respondents have not filed any application for review of the judgment and order dated 16.07.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2014. 5. Shri Sadavarte, the learned counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to the order dated 13.07.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3284 of 2011, dismissing the petition challenging the similar application filed by the petitioner on earlier occasion. 6. This Court is concerned with the implementation of the order dated 16.07.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2014. Hence, the reliance is misplaced. 7. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16.10.2014 passed below Exh.245 rejecting the application for permission to adduce the evidence is hereby quashed and set aside. The said application is allowed. The trial Court shall permit leading of the evidence, so also permit the defendants to cross examine the witnesses examined by the plaintiff and if occasion arises to permit the defendants to enter the witness box and lead the evidence in rebuttal. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.