JUDGMENT SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM,J. - The captioned writ petition is filed by judgment debtor No.3, who is questioning the order dtd. 24/3/2022 in Ex.No.57/2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, KR Peter (Annexure- H) on I.A.No.13 under Sec. 151 of CPC and I.A.No.14 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of CPC, seeking leave of the Court to reopen the case and permit the present petitioner to cross examine one retired Taluk Surveyor who has been examined as C.W.1. 2. The present applications are filed on the premise that on cross examination of Taluk Surveyor at the instance of petitioner, the Taluk Surveyor has made a statement on Oath that no records are available in the office of Town Municipality. The apprehension of judgment debtor No.3 is that the said statement would reflect badly on the local authority/town municipal council. The contention of judgment debtor No.3 is that the said statement made by the Taluk Surveyor is contrary to the records and therefore, the present petitioner intends to recall Taluk Surveyor and cross examine him with regard to the available records with present petitioner's office. The petitioner is also trying to make out the case that the present petitioner's applications are filed only to assist the Court in effectively adjudicating the controversy between the parties and therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Executing Court erred in rejecting the application. 3. On these set of grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that though no relief is sought against the present petitioner, however, the entire lis between the parties is based on the survey done by a Taluk Surveyor. He would point out that Taluk Surveyor in terms of direction issued by the Executing Court has carried out survey. However, while tendering ocular evidence in support of his report, he has made a submission that the records concerning to the property in dispute is not available with the town municipality council, K.R.Pete. The present petitioner, who is a Chief Officer, however, contends that the records are very much available and the statement made by the surveyor is factually incorrect. Though no relief is sought against the petitioner but the statement would virtually damage the image of the Town Municipality Council. The present petitioner, who is a Chief Officer, however, contends that the records are very much available and the statement made by the surveyor is factually incorrect. Though no relief is sought against the petitioner but the statement would virtually damage the image of the Town Municipality Council. Therefore on this limited point, the petitioner intends to confront the Taluk Surveyor with the records available with the Town Municipal council. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/decree holder would support the reasons assigned by the Executing Court while rejecting the applications. He would contend that the present petitioner has exhaustively cross examined the Taluk Surveyor and since the present petitioner is a formal party, the question of reopening the case and affording an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine would unnecessarily expand the scope of enquiry which is unwarranted in the present case on hand. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/ judgment debtor No.3 and learned counsel for respondent No.1. 6. Perused the order under challenge. This is a peculiar case wherein based on decree passed by Appellate Court in R.A.66/1992, the defendants have initiated execution proceedings. The controversy involved in execution petition is in regard to boundaries. The Executing Court appointed a Taluk Surveyor to measure the properties and submit report to the Court. Though Taluk Surveyor has submitted a report, however, in his ocular evidence has made a statement that while carrying out survey he was not supplied with record and therefore, he made statement that records are not available. The said statement made by Taluk Surveyor is found at page No.36 in Annexure-D to the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the ocular evidence of Taluk Surveyor . The petitioner who is a Chief Officer of Town Municipal council has taken a strong objection to the statement made by Taluk Surveyor in ocular evidence. Though I am of the view that the said statement has no direct bearing on the actual lis between the parties, but, I would find some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If in a civil proceedings before the competent Civil Court a statement is made that records are not available pertaining to the suit schedule properties with Town Municipality, to this limited extent, petitioner is entitled to clarify the said statement. If in a civil proceedings before the competent Civil Court a statement is made that records are not available pertaining to the suit schedule properties with Town Municipality, to this limited extent, petitioner is entitled to clarify the said statement. But that in itself would not give right to petitioner to recall the Taluk Surveyor and cross examine him. It would be suffice if he leads evidence to that limited extent and produce the documents which are available with the Town Municipal council pertaining to the suit properties. 7. Reserving liberty only to produce documents on the next date of hearing, writ petition stands disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Town Municipality through its authorized counsel is permitted to produce relevant records pertaining to the case. In the event those documents are produced, it is always open for other contesting parties to cross examine the said witness. It is made clear that the petitioner shall produce the documents on the next date of hearing and the other contesting parties if intend to cross examine, shall examine and conclude on the said date itself.