ORDER : 1. The matter was passed over and called out once again in the post-lunch session, but there is no representation for the respondents. Noticing that the present proceedings arise out of the suit in O.S.No.221/1995, no further accommodation can be given to the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The plaintiff, late Bhadraiah had filed a suit in O.S.No.221/1995 for specific performance in respect of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the petitioner had died and is now represented by his legal representatives. It is the submission of the petitioners that list of witnesses along with an application numbered as I.A.No.2 had been filed before the trial Court and a copy of the said application is enclosed as Annexure-G to the petition. The petitioners state that after the matter was posted for arguments, I.A.No.11 came to be filed seeking to reopen the proceedings and to permit the plaintiff to lead further evidence and I.A.No.12 came to be filed seeking for recalling the order and permitting the plaintiff to lead evidence through witnesses. 4. The petitioners submit that the said witnesses sought to be examined are necessary, as they are attesting witnesses to the agreement of sale dated 25.06.1990 and in view of the denial of agreement by the respondents, it is necessary to examine the said witnesses to discharge the burden placed on the plaintiff as regards the proof of agreement of sale dated 25.06.1990. 5. The trial Court, however, has rejected I.A.Nos.11 and 12, by order dated 05.09.2013 merely observing that it is an old matter and that evidence of plaintiff (PW1) had been completed prior to 2008 and it further observed that in the absence of furnishing of list of witnesses in terms of Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC, the question of allowing the said applications did not arise. The petitioners point out that the order is passed without application of mind. 6. Insofar as the trial Court not taking note of I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiff on 26.02.2004, the trial Court appears to have passed an order in a mechanical manner without due consideration. It is clear that I.A.No.2 had been filed and is part of the record. Without noticing the said fact, the trial Court has gone ahead to dismiss the application. 7. It is clear that I.A.No.2 had been filed and is part of the record. Without noticing the said fact, the trial Court has gone ahead to dismiss the application. 7. The right of the plaintiff to prove his case in a manner permissible under law is a substantive right of the plaintiff and if the plaintiff chooses to examine the witnesses in order to discharge the burden placed upon him as regards the proof of agreement of sale, the said prayer of the plaintiff ought to be considered. 8. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also noting that the witnesses now sought to be examined are attesting witnesses to the agreement of sale, in the interest of justice, it would be just and proper to allow the said applications and permit the petitioners to adduce evidence and to reopen the proceedings. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and I.A.Nos.11 and 12 are allowed. The petitioners are permitted to examine the witnesses as per the list already produced along with the application. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 24.11.2018 without waiting for any fresh notice from it. Considering that the suit is of the year 1995, the parties to cooperate in an expeditious disposal of the suit.