ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants No. 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants No. 1 to 4”) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned orders dated 05.02.2020 and 06.02.2020 respectively passed by the trial court, whereby one application filed by the defendants no. 5 to 7 and another application flied by defendants no. 1 to 4 respectively have been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. During the pendancy of the suit, defendants nos. 1 to 4 and 5 to 7 filed separate applications for summoning the original documents from the plaintiffs. The Trial Court vide its order dated 22.10.2019, disposed of both the applications and asked the plaintiffs to bring 54 original documents, as produced by them on 14.8.2001, for the purpose of marking exhibit thereon, with a copy thereof to the defendants and the matter was adjourned to 4.11.2019. On 4.11.2019, copy of the documents were provided to the counsel for the defendants, which were received by them and no objection in regard thereto was raised by them. Subsequently, vide order dated 17.12.2019, the trial court dismissed an application filed by the defendant no. 5 to 7 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement and vide order dated 16.1.2020, the trial court dismissed the defendant's application seeking to dismiss the suit on the grounds mentioned in the application. In this view of the matter, the defendants no. 5 to 7 filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for review of the aforesaid two orders, which was dismissed by the trial court vide its order dated 23.1.2020 with a cost of Rs. 3000/-. Subsequently, on 4.2.2020, defendants no. 5 to 7 filed another application under Section 151 CPC seeking to waive the cost, as imposed. The Trial Court, vide its order dated 5.2.2020 dismissed the said application with a cost of Rs. 1000/-. 3. Subsequently the defendants no. 1 to 4 filed another application for summoning the original trust deed, gift deed and deed of settlement, which was disposed of by the trial court vide order dated 21.1.2020 asking the plaintiff to produce the original trust deed, gift deed and settlement deed (Ex.1). 4. 1000/-. 3. Subsequently the defendants no. 1 to 4 filed another application for summoning the original trust deed, gift deed and deed of settlement, which was disposed of by the trial court vide order dated 21.1.2020 asking the plaintiff to produce the original trust deed, gift deed and settlement deed (Ex.1). 4. Since the plaintiffs produced certified copy of Ex.1, the defendants raised an objection that vide order dated 21.1.2020 the plaintiffs were directed to produce the original trust deed, gift deed and settlement deed, but original thereof was not produced. The Trial Court having considered the submissions that the original trust deed, gift deed and settlement deed were lying in another Court, vide its order dated 5.2.2020 observed that the document in question was the certified copy of Ex.1 (which had already been exhibited) and since the said document (Ex.1) was produced on askance of the defendants no. 1 to 4, permitted them to cross-examine the plaintiffs in regard thereto. At that point of time, the defendants no. 1 to 4 filed an application for dismissing the suit, which came to be dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 6.2.2020. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants no. 1 to 4 while challenging both the orders dated 5.2.2020 and 6.2.2020 submits that the order dated 5.2.2020 has been passed by the trial court without there being any application for review or recall by the plaintiffs. He further submits that when vide order dated 22.10.2019, the plaintiffs were directed to produce 54 original documents, originals thereof were required to be produced by the plaintiffs. However, the learned trial court has utterly failed to consider this aspect of the matter. On this count, the impugned orders are perverse and liable to be quashed and set-aside. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. The order dated 5.2.2020 was passed on the review application filed by the defendants no. 5 to 7, but they have not challenged the said order and the said order has been challenged by the defendants no. 1 to 4, who have no locus to challenge the said order. Furthermore, when two different orders have been passed by the trial court on two different applications filed by two different parties, they cannot be challenged in one petition. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. 1 to 4, who have no locus to challenge the said order. Furthermore, when two different orders have been passed by the trial court on two different applications filed by two different parties, they cannot be challenged in one petition. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. On 22.10.2019, the trial court passed the following order: ^^Ádj.k o"kZ 1999 ls yfEcr gksdj U;k;ky; ds iqjkus Ádj.kksa esa 'kqekj gSA vr% oknh dks viuh lk{; is'k djus gsrq vfUre volj fn;k tkrk gS ,oa vkxkeh is'kh ij oknh mlds }kjk fnukad 14-08-2001 dks ÁLrqr nLrkostksa ij Án'kZ vafdr djus dh okaNk j[krk gS rks ewy nLrkost lkFk ysdj vkosA lkFk gh fu;r frfFk ls iwoZ gh Áfroknhx.k dks fnukad 14-08-2001 dks ÁLrqr nLrkostksa dh Áfr;ka miyC/k djk;saA i=koyh okLrs lk{; oknh fnukad 04-11-2019 dks is'k gksaA** 9. From a perusal of the order dated 22.10.2019, it is evident that plaintiffs were nowhere directed to produce 54 original documents, but they were asked to produce the original documents, if they wanted to mark exhibit thereon, with a copy thereof to the defendants before the next date. If original documents have not been produced by the plaintiffs, the documents would not be exhibited. Further, the defendants received the documents produced by the plaintiffs but no objection in regard thereto was raised by them at the relevant point of time. 10. Even otherwise, when the defendants no. 1 to 4 themselves filed an application for summoning the original trust deed, gift deed and deed of settlement and the said application was disposed of by the trial court vide its order dated 21.1.2020 asking the plaintiffs to produce the original document of Ex.1 and pursuant thereto, the plaintiffs produced certified copy of Ex.1, the trial court has rightly dismissed the defendants' application. 11. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Trial Court in its impugned order. 12. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised in cases of jurisdictional error, apparent perversity, patent illegality or manifest injustice, which is not the situation here in this case. 13. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the stay application also stands dismissed.