JUDGMENT B.N. KARIA, J. 1. Rule. Mr.K.V. Shelat, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for respondent no.1, Mr.Shivang Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for respondent nos.7.1, 7.2 and 8 and Ms.Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for respondent nos.12 and 13. 2. As the parties in both the petitions are common and orders challenged in both the petitions are from Special Civil Suit No.295 of 1983 pending before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, for the sake of convenience and the issues are connected with the main suit, on a request being made by learned advocates for the respective parties, both the petition are decided by passing common order. 3. In Special Civil Application No.5419 of 2015, present petitioners are original defendant nos.9.2, 9.3 and 9.4, have challenged the legality and validity of the order passed below Exh.508, dated 28.11.2014 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara partly allowing the application vide Exh.508 in Special Civil Suit No.295 of 1983. Some of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.5420 of 2015 have challenged the legality and validity of the orders passed below Exhs.517 and 519 dated 12.01.2015 and 17.01.2015 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No.295 of 1983. 4. Short facts of the present case may be summarized to decide the petitions as under: 4.1 Respondents herein – original plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.295 of 1983 and pleadings were concluded by the original plaintiff, and thereafter, the learned Trial Court framed nine issues vide Exh.30 on 29.06.1985. The plaintiff produced his evidence in examination in chief before the learned Trial Court on 11.10.1985. Initially, the plaintiff remained absent before the learned Trial Court for cross-examination i.e. on 08.01.1986 and same parts of his cross-examination were recorded, but some could not be completed because the plaintiff did not attend the Court proceedings regularly and did not make himself available for cross-examination. On 31.01.1986, since cross-examination of the petitioners could not be concluded, proceedings were adjourned time to time for a period of about 15 years. The plaintiff did not remain present before the learned Trial Court and did not offer for his cross-examination which was left incomplete from 08.01.1986. On 08.11.2000, learned Trial Court discarded his evidence. On 31.01.1986, since cross-examination of the petitioners could not be concluded, proceedings were adjourned time to time for a period of about 15 years. The plaintiff did not remain present before the learned Trial Court and did not offer for his cross-examination which was left incomplete from 08.01.1986. On 08.11.2000, learned Trial Court discarded his evidence. The plaintiff failed to adduce further evidence and hence, the learned Trial Court closed the stage of his evidence on 15.11.2000. Thereafter, defendant nos.1, 3 and 4 also did not lead any evidence, and therefore, learned Trial Court closed the stage of their evidence vide order dated 20.11.2000. Defendant nos.5, 6 and 9 tendered pursis inter alia declaring that the said defendants did not desire to lead any oral evidence, and therefore, on 04.11.2001, evidence of defendant nos.5, 6 and 9 was closed. The plaintiff did not take any action for another 12 years, and therefore, defendants preferred an application vide Exh.487 on 12.10.2012 praying to pass appropriate order in the suit having regard to the fact that original plaintiff has not led any evidence. After filing the aforesaid application Exh.487, plaintiff filed an application vide Exh.492 on 06.02.2013 praying to reopen the stage of cross-examination, which was abundant in the year 1986 and evidence was closed on 15.11.2000. The learned Trial Court, by common order dated 18.04.2013, rejected the application vide Exh.492 preferred by the plaintiff and allowed the application vide Exh.487 preferred by the original defendants and ordered that necessary final order be passed below Exh.1 in Special Civil Suit No.295 of 1983. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court below Exhs.492 and 487 dated 18.04.2013, the plaintiff approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.9237 of 2013, wherein this Court (Coram: K.M. Thaker, J.) vide order dated 01.04.2014 rejected the Special Civil Application No.9237 of 2013 by reason order and confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court. While rejecting Special Civil Application No.9237 of 2013, it was observed that it goes without saying that the learned Trial Court would pass appropriate final order having regard to the aforesaid aspect and after following prescribed procedure. While rejecting Special Civil Application No.9237 of 2013, it was observed that it goes without saying that the learned Trial Court would pass appropriate final order having regard to the aforesaid aspect and after following prescribed procedure. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred an application vide Exh.508 on 25.07.2014 inter alia praying to add/frame an additional issue in the issues framed vide Exh.30 dated 24.06.1985 and also to frame an issue in respect to the application vide Exh.184 which was ordered to be heard with the suit. The learned Trial Court partly allowed the said application preferred by the plaintiff vide Exh.508 vide order dated 28.11.2014 and directed to frame additional issue. Hence Special Civil Application No.5419 of 2015. 5. In pursuance of the order passed below Exh.508 dated 28.11.2014, plaintiff filed an application Exh.517 and Exh.519 inter alia praying for permitting him to lead documentary evidence and to exhibit documentary evidence produced along with the list at Exhs.448 and 518. The learned Trial Court allowed application below Exh.517 and permitted the plaintiff to produce documents in the application Exh.519 which were placed on record along with the list at Exhs.518/1 to 518/20 and 448/1 to 448/396. Hence, Special Civil Application No.5420 of 2015 is preferred by the petitioners. 6. Heard Mr.S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Jay M. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr.K.V. Shelat, learned advocate for respondent no.1, Mr.Shivang Shah, learned advocate appearing for respondent nos.7.1, 7.2 and 8 and Ms.Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP for respondent nos.12 and 13. 7. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court below Exh.508 is erroneous and without any basis and against settled principles of law. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has no right to prefer the said application below Exh.508 as it was not open for the learned Trial Court to reopen the stage of evidence and permit the plaintiff to lead additional evidence. It is further submitted that conduct of the plaintiff is to delay and drag the proceedings of the suit filed way-back in the year 1983. It is further submitted that the plaintiff after 24 years submitted an application Exh.508 for reopening the stage of the evidence which was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court on 18.04.2013. It is further submitted that conduct of the plaintiff is to delay and drag the proceedings of the suit filed way-back in the year 1983. It is further submitted that the plaintiff after 24 years submitted an application Exh.508 for reopening the stage of the evidence which was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court on 18.04.2013. It is further submitted that this Court confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court below Exh.492 in Special Civil Application No.9237 of 2013 and the said order has attained finality, and therefore, it was not open for the learned Trial Court to frame additional issue and permit the plaintiff to lead additional evidence in the manner. It is further submitted that the application preferred by the defendants Exh.487 was allowed in order to pass final judgment under Exh.1 in Special Civil Suit No.295 of 1983. That the said order was confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.9237 of 2013. That the said suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1983 and since the year 2021, by some or other reasons, the plaintiff did not want to proceed with the suit and delay the proceedings unnecessarily. It is further submitted that the application for alleged breach of interim injunction was ordered to be heard along with the suit and learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the said application itself was not maintainable, and therefore, order passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be sustained. That issues were framed in the suit vide Exh.30 on 24.06.1985, and therefore, at the stage of final arguments, the learned Trial Court cannot allow the application Exh.508. It is further submitted that additional issue is completely unjustified and there is no need for additional issue. It is further submitted that as no prayer is granted and if no interim relief is granted, further question of breach of order does not arise. That there is no order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC for short) in favour of the plaintiff. That in the application Exh.184, there is no prayer under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and there is no question of granting any inter relief under the said provisions when the suit itself was fixed for final disposal after the evidence is closed. That in the application Exh.184, there is no prayer under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and there is no question of granting any inter relief under the said provisions when the suit itself was fixed for final disposal after the evidence is closed. It is further submitted that there is no reason in the application Exhs.517 and 519 justifying the production of the documentary evidence after the order passed by this Court which attained finality. It is further submitted that advocate representing the contesting defendant no.9 did not give any consent for exhibiting the said documents. That defendant nos.7 and 9 were represented by different advocates. That by allowing application Exhs.517 and 519 along with list Exhs.448 and 518, the plaintiff is permitted to produce documentary evidence which is completely contrary to the judgment of this Court, and therefore, orders passed below Exhs.517 and 519 are required to be quashed and set aside as the same is not permissible in law. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for the petitioners in both the petitions to quash and set aside the order passed below Exh.508 dated 28.11.2014 as well as order passed below Exhs.517 and 519 dated 12.01.2015 and 17.01.2015 in Special Civil Suit No.295 of 1983 by allowing these petition. 8. From the other side, learned advocate for respondent no.1 has strongly opposed the submissions made by the petitioners and supported the reasons and order passed below Exhs.508, 517 and 519 by the learned Court-below. It is further submitted that the impugned order challenged by the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal, unreasonable or erroneous as there is no jurisdiction error committed by the learned Trial Court which would require to be corrected by this Court. It is further submitted that under Order 14 Rules 3 and 5 of the CPC, it is clear preposition of law that such issue can be framed and/or amended or added any time before passing of the decree, and therefore, such a right of the plaintiff can never be taken away causing prejudice to him. It is further submitted that under Order 14 Rules 3 and 5 of the CPC, it is clear preposition of law that such issue can be framed and/or amended or added any time before passing of the decree, and therefore, such a right of the plaintiff can never be taken away causing prejudice to him. It is further submitted that this Court in Special Civil Application No.5419 of 2015 has never asked the learned Trial Court to shut its eyes to various pending applications which were required to be heard and decided, nor this Court has restrained the Trial Court from deciding any application which is given in accordance with the provisions of the CPC in adding/amending the issues which are borne out or required for determination in a civil litigation pertaining to the rights of the parties. It is further submitted that there was nothing on the part of the plaintiff to request the learned Trial Court to amend the issues, as contemplated under Order 14 Rules 3 and 5 of the CPC. It is further submitted that an application Exh.508 was submitted by the plaintiff for amending/framing of issues on the basis of written statement at Exh.110. It is further submitted that as per the settled law, issue can be framed and can be amended at any stage of the suit before passing the decree as per Order 14 Rules 3 and 5 of the CPC. That this Court in Special Civil Application No.9237 of 2013 has also directed the learned Trial Court to follow the procedure prescribed under the CPC for hearing and final decision of the suit and also after taking into account material available on record and after determining its evidentiary value following proper procedure. After following application Exh.504, additional issue was framed in respect of breach of the interim order, and therefore, applications Exhs.517 and 519 were submitted justifying the production of documentary evidence. That along with the list, certified copies were produced at Mark 518/1 to 518/20 and along with the list, about 396 documents were produced. That no illegality is committed by the learned Court-below in permitting the plaintiff for producing documentary evidence, as requested in the application Exhs.517 and 519 of the suit. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for respondent no.1 to dismiss both the petitions. 9. That no illegality is committed by the learned Court-below in permitting the plaintiff for producing documentary evidence, as requested in the application Exhs.517 and 519 of the suit. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for respondent no.1 to dismiss both the petitions. 9. Learned advocate for the respondent nos.7.1, 7.2 and 8 has supported the arguments made by learned advocate for the petitioners. 10. Ms.Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP for respondent nos.12 and 13, considering the issue pending between the parties is a private in nature, requested to pass necessary order. 11. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned AGP for respondent nos.12 and 13 and perused the material on record, it is not in dispute that Special Civil Suit No.295 of 1983 was filed by the plaintiff in 1983 praying for partition of the suit property. As pleadings came to be concluded, the Trial Court framed nine issues on 29.06.1985 vide Exh.30. Evidence on affidavit was tendered by the plaintiff on 11.10.1985. Initially, the plaintiff remained present before the Trial Court for cross-examination and some parts of the cross-examination of the plaintiff came to be recorded on 08.01.1986, but it could not be completed because the plaintiff did not attend the proceedings regularly before the Trial Court and he did not make available for cross-examination. The suit proceedings were adjourned to 30.01.1986 for further cross-examination of the plaintiff. Proceedings of the suit were adjourned time to time for a period of 15 yeas by the Court-below. As the plaintiff did not remain present before the Trial Court and offer for his cross-examination which was left incomplete from 08.01.1986, on 08.11.2000, the Trial Court discarded his evidence. No further evidence was produced by the plaintiff, and therefore, on 15.11.2000, stage of the plaintiff's evidence was closed by the Trial Court. Defendant nos.1, 3 and 4 also did not lead any evidence, and therefore, on 20.11.2000, the Trial Court closed the stage of the evidence of defendant nos.1, 3 and 4. Thereafter, on 04.11.2001, a pursis was filed by defendant nos.5, 6 and 9 declaring that they did not desire to lead any oral evidence, and therefore, on very same day, evidence of defendant nos.5, 6 and 9 was closed by the Court-below. Thereafter, on 04.11.2001, a pursis was filed by defendant nos.5, 6 and 9 declaring that they did not desire to lead any oral evidence, and therefore, on very same day, evidence of defendant nos.5, 6 and 9 was closed by the Court-below. As the plaintiff did not take any action for another 12 years, defendants preferred one application vide Exh.487 on 12.10.2012 praying to pass appropriate order in the suit having regard to the fact that the plaintiff has not led any evidence. Thereafter, on 06.02.2013, vide application Exh.487, original plaintiff preferred one application vide Exh.492 on 06.02.2013 praying to reopen the stage of his cross-examination which was abundant in the year 1986 and his evidence was closed on 15.01.2000. The Trial Court, by common order dated 18.04.2013, rejected the application Exh.492 preferred by the plaintiff and further allowed the application Exh.487 preferred by the defendants and ordered that necessary final order be passed below Exh.1 in Special Civil Suit No.295 of 1983. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the impugned order, approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.9237 of 2013, wherein this Court (Coram: K.M. Thaker, J.) vide order dated 01.04.2014 rejected the said Special Civil Application with reasoned order. It was observed in the order that it goes without saying that the Trial Court would pass appropriate final order having regard to the aforesaid aspect and after following prescribed procedure. Thereafter, vide Exh.508, on 25.07.2014, the plaintiff preferred an application to add/frame an additional issue in the issues framed vide Exh.30 on 24.06.1985 and also to frame an issue in respect of the application Exh.184 which was ordered to be heard with the suit. Surprisingly, the Trial Court partly allowed the said application preferred by the plaintiff vide Exh.508 vide order dated 28.11.2014. Relevant portions of Special Civil Application No.9237 of 2013 decided by this Court on 01.04.2014 would require to be reproduced as under: “5. From the above mentioned details it emerges that after evidence of examination – in – chief and cross examination of the plaintiff was recorded on 8.1.1986 the petitioner – plaintiff did not remain present before the Court and ultimately after almost 14 years the learned Court closed the stage of plaintiff's evidence vide order dated 15.1.2000. From the above mentioned details it emerges that after evidence of examination – in – chief and cross examination of the plaintiff was recorded on 8.1.1986 the petitioner – plaintiff did not remain present before the Court and ultimately after almost 14 years the learned Court closed the stage of plaintiff's evidence vide order dated 15.1.2000. 5.1 In view of the fact that the plaintiff had abandoned the evidence, inasmuch as he did not remain present before the Court for cross-examination after 31.1.1986 and thereafter, did not examine any witness and considering the fact that the learned Court after taking into account the conduct of the plaintiff of not examining any witness and leading any evidence has passed the order dated 15.1.2000 closing the stage of evidence and even thereafter, the plaintiff had not taken any action for almost 12 years, the defendant moved an application dated 12.10.2012 requesting the learned Court to pass appropriate order in the suit having regard to the fact that the petitioner has not lead any evidence. The said application came to be registered as Exh.487. It appears that it was the said application Exh.487 by the defendant which prompted the plaintiff to file the application Exh.492 dated 6.2.2013. It was about 13 years after the learned Court passed the order dated 15.1.2000 discarding the plaintiff's oral evidence and closing the stage of plaintiff's evidence that the plaintiff filed the application dated 6.2.2013, i.e. Exh.492, whereby the plaintiff requested the Court to reopen the stage of his cross-examination/evidence. 5.2 It is pertinent to note that the order closing evidence was passed on 15.11.2000 and the plaintiff's application exhibit 492 came to be filed on or around 6.2.2013 i.e. almost after 13 years. 5.3 After considering the above-mentioned aspects, learned trial Court rejected the said application Exh.492. 5.4 In this context, it is also necessary to note that the petitioner filed the above-mentioned application Exh.492 after the respondents – original defendants filed application Exh. 487 dated 12.10.2012, wherein the defendants requested the learned trial Court that since the plaintiff has not led any evidence in support of his suit, appropriate order disposing the suit may be passed. 5.5 It appears that, actually, it is the said application on account of which the plaintiff woke-up from his slumber and moved the application Exh.492 and requested the learned trial Court to reopen the stage of cross-examination. 5.5 It appears that, actually, it is the said application on account of which the plaintiff woke-up from his slumber and moved the application Exh.492 and requested the learned trial Court to reopen the stage of cross-examination. 5.6 The learned trial Court has taken into account the said aspect also and after considering overall view of the matter, particularly the conduct of the plaintiff right from 1986 to 2013, rejected the said application Exh.492. The above mentioned chronology gives out that the plaintiff has been thoroughly negligent and indifferent towards the proceedings and actually and in substance and effect, the plaintiff, by his conduct, voluntarily and willingly abandoned his cross-examination/evidence and thereafter he also, abandoned the suit proceedings so much so that after 31.1.1986, he, for the first time, took any step in the proceedings on 6.2.2013 by submitting the application Exh.492, and that too, after the defendants moved the application Exh.487 dated 12.10.2012. It is in background of such facts, that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order which, in view of this Court does not call for and does not warrant any interference. 7. It is apparent on the face of the record and it also emerges from the order that the cross examination of the plaintiff was partly recorded on 31.1.1986 and thereafter, the plaintiff stopped attending the proceedings and did not remain present for further cross-examination and did not offer himself for further cross-examination. 7.1 Accordingly, the petitioner – plaintiff abandoned the stage of evidence by abandoning the cross-examination process and thereby also, abandoned the suit proceedings, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not examine any other witness. 8.6 In absence of any material supporting the justifying the claim made in the application, coupled with the inordinate and unexplained delay of almost 24 years (or 13 years after the orders dated 8.11.2000 and 15.11.2000) and in view of the fact that the plaintiff woke-up from his deep slumber and inertia after 24 years and that too only because of the defendants' application Exh.487, the application deserves to be rejected and is rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. 9. 9. On overall view of the matter and in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is not, and cannot be said to be, arbitrary, unjust, erroneous, unreasonable, perverse or even unequitable and does not deserve to be interfered with and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as regards application Exh.492. However, so far as the order which relates to the defendants' application Exh.487 is concerned, it appears necessary and appropriate to clarify that though the plaintiff has not lead any oral evidence, it is, however, possible that before the stage of oral evidence, the plaintiff might have placed on record documentary evidence and that therefore, before any final order is passed in the suit, it would be necessary and appropriate for the Court to take into account the material available on record to examine its evidentiary value, more particularly when the defendants also have not led any evidence before passing any order in respect of and/or in pursuance of application Exh.487 and the order dated 18.4.2013 below said application being Exh.487.” 12. As observed by this Court in the aforesaid Special Civil Application and from the record produced before this Court, it is not in dispute the fact that oral examination in chief of the plaintiff was recorded on 11.10.1985 and his cross-examination was started on 08.01.1986 which was continued upto 31.01.1986. Cross-examination of the plaintiff could not be completed on 31.01.1986, and thereafter, suit was listed on the next date of hearing for further cross-examination of the plaintiff. Since 31.01.1986, ample opportunity was given by the Court to the plaintiff for the purpose of his cross-examination, but the plaintiff failed to appear before the Court for a period of not less than 15 years, and therefore, vide order dated 08.11.2000, the Court discarded his entire deposition by closing the same. Again, the plaintiff failed to adduce any further evidence in the suit, and therefore, stage of production of his evidence was also closed on 15.11.2000 and the matter was listed for recording evidence of the defendants. No evidence was adduced by the defendants’ side, and therefore, right of production of evidence by defendant nos.1, 2, 4 and 7 was closed during the period from 20.11.2000 to 04.01.2021. Defendant nos.5, 6 and 9 also did not give any evidence and filed closing pursis of their evidence on 11.12.2000. No evidence was adduced by the defendants’ side, and therefore, right of production of evidence by defendant nos.1, 2, 4 and 7 was closed during the period from 20.11.2000 to 04.01.2021. Defendant nos.5, 6 and 9 also did not give any evidence and filed closing pursis of their evidence on 11.12.2000. One of the parties has produced evidence in the suit upto 04.01.2001. As the application Exh.492 was dismissed by the Court-below and application Exh.487 was granted, suit was posted for necessary final order below Exh.1. This order was also confirmed by this Court in the aforesaid Special Civil Application. There was no question to add/frame any additional issue earlier framed vide Exh.30 on 24.06.1985, however, the plaintiff preferred an application Exh.508 on 25.07.2014. Earlier, application Exh.185 was ordered to be heard along with the suit. However, the Trial Court committed an error in partly allowing the application Exh.508 vide order dated 28.11.2014 directing to frame the additional issue which was not at all required by the Court-below to decide the controversy in the suit. From the conduct of the petitioner, it appears that he is delaying and dragging the proceedings of the suit filed way-back in the year 1983. After passing of 24 years of the institution of the suit, application Exh.508 for reopening the stage of the evidence was submitted by the plaintiff which was rightly rejected by the Trial Court on 18.04.2013. It was not open for the Trial Court to frame any additional issue and permit the plaintiff to lead any additional evidence in the suit. As per the order passed below Exh.487 preferred by the defendants, the matter was posted for final judgment below Exh.1 in the suit. As observed by this Court, the said order passed below Exh.487 was confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.9237 of 2013. At the stage of final arguments of the suit, the Trial Court cannot allow the application Exh.508 as there was no need to frame any additional issue. From the record, it appears that there was no interim relief granted by the Court-below, and therefore, there was no question of breach of order committed by the defendants. No order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was passed in the suit in favour of the plaintiff as argued by learned advocate for the petitioners. From the record, it appears that there was no interim relief granted by the Court-below, and therefore, there was no question of breach of order committed by the defendants. No order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was passed in the suit in favour of the plaintiff as argued by learned advocate for the petitioners. Further, in the application Exh.184, there was no prayer made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and there was no question of granting any interim relief under the said provisions when the suit itself was fixed for final disposal after evidence was closed. There was no justification in the application Exhs.517 and 519 for production of the documentary evidence after the order passed by the Trial Court which has got finality. The respondent has tried to interpret the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.9237 of 2013 at his own way which is not permissible. 13. Considering the peculiar facts of present case, both the petitions are required to be allowed as the Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application Exh.508 as well as Exhs.517 and 519. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court below Exh.508 dated 28.11.2014, Exh.517 dated 12.01.2015 and Exh.519 dated 17.01.2015 shall be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.