ORDER : The petitioners/defendants 8 and 9 in OS No.112/2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Haveri are before this Court assailing the order dated 30.11.2019 on IA Nos.11 to 13 by which direction to defendants 1 and 4 to produce the documents; to recall the plaintiff’s and defendants’ witness for further cross-examination by the defendants 8 and 9 and to produce certified copy of the of the documents are rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 8 and 9 and perused the writ petition papers. The respondents even though served with notice, are unrepresented. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit is one for partition and separate possession. The petitioners/defendants 8 and 9 are the purchasers of the suit properties from the defendant No.1. After completion of the evidence of the plaintiff and defendants, the petitioners/defendants 8 and 9 filed three applications. IA No.11 filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC seeking for direction to the defendants 1 and 4 to produce the registered Will executed by husband of the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.6 on 19.10.2004 and Deed of Cancellation dated 26.2.2005; IA No.12 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall the plaintiff’s and defendants’ witness for further cross-examination by the defendants 8 and 9 and; IA No.13 filed under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC seeking permission to produce the certified copy of the Will and cancellation of Will. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 8 and 9 would submit that those documents are very much necessary for deciding the issue involved in the suit, since the defendants 8 and 9 have to establish that it is a self-acquired property of the husband of the defendant No.1. The trial Court erroneously rejected the application. No proper reasons are assigned for rejection of the applications. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petitions. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 8 and 9 and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petitioners/defendants 8 and 9 have not taken up any contention with regard to Will and cancellation of Will in their written statement. 6. The petitioners/defendants 8 and 9 have not taken up any contention with regard to Will and cancellation of Will in their written statement. Moreover, it is noticed that the petitioners are filing applications one after another. Earlier, the petitioners had filed IA No.10 to recall the DW3 for further cross-examination, which was allowed with cost. But the petitioners failed to utilize the opportunity. Subsequently, these three applications (IA Nos.11 to 13) are filed without assigning proper reasons. It is also not stated in the applications as to what is the relevancy of the documents to be produced. It is also not stated that as to why the petitioners/defendants 8 and 9 require recalling of plaintiff’s and defendants’ witness for further cross-examination. Mere changing of counsel would not be a reason for seeking further cross-examination of plaintiff’s and defendants’ witnesses. Thus, I find no reason to allow the applications (IA Nos.11 to 13). The trial Court rightly rejected the applications. No ground is made out to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuance of the order dated 16.1.2020, the petitioners had deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards litigation expenses of the respondents before this Court. Since the respondents have not appeared, even though they were served with Court notice, amount deposited by the petitioners be refunded to the petitioners on proper identification.