ORDER : 1. Writ petition No. 13842/2022 is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 2556/2008 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19) challenging the order dated 02.07.2022 by which an application filed by the plaintiffs to recall DW-1 was rejected. 2. W.P. No. 7651/2021 is filed by the defendant in the said suit challenging the order dated 26.02.2021 rejecting an application filed by him for production of documents under Order 8 Rule 1(A) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. The suit in O.S No. 2556/2008 was filed for declaration of title and consequential relief in respect of an agricultural land bearing survey No. 55/2. The suit was contested by the defendant and the case was posted for evidence by the parties. 4. At the stage of examination in chief of the defendant, an application was filed under Order 8 Rule 1(A) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for production of documents that were related to the suit. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the same was filed belatedly and that there is no justification for the delay. Later defendant was cross-examined and the case was posted for further evidence of defendant. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed an application to recall DW-1 for cross-examination, which was rejected as the plaintiffs did not make out sufficient grounds to recall DW-1. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the plaintiffs and defendant have filed separate writ petition as mentioned above. 5. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the relative of the counsel of the plaintiffs was not well and therefore the counsel could not go on with the cross-examination of DW-1. 6. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the delay in producing the documents was sufficiently explained, which the trial Court did not take into consideration. 7. Having regard the substantial nature of the relief sought by the plaintiffs, the trial Court ought not to have rejected the application filed to produce the documents and to recall DW-1 for cross examination. The earnestness shown by the trial Court is though understandable, but yet the parties cannot be deprived of an opportunity to effectively participate in the proceedings. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the trial Court are set aside. 8. W.P. No. 13842/2022 is allowed. The earnestness shown by the trial Court is though understandable, but yet the parties cannot be deprived of an opportunity to effectively participate in the proceedings. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the trial Court are set aside. 8. W.P. No. 13842/2022 is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.07.2022 passed on I.A. Nos. 19 and 20 in O.S. No. 2556/2008 by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside. The applications filed by the plaintiffs to recall DW-1 for further cross-examination is also allowed. 9. W.P. No. 7651/2021 is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.02.2021 passed on I.A. No. 16 in O.S. No. 2556/2008 by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside. The application filed by the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1(A) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed. 10. The trial Court shall permit the defendant to mark the documents which are produced by him. 11. DW-1 shall remain present on the next date of hearing and shall be cross-examined without fail. 12. The Operative portion of the order shall be communicated to the trial Court forthwith.