JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner-plaintiff in O.S.No.355/2007 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, is before this Court aggrieved by rejection of I.A.No.22 to 24 filed under Order 18 Rule 17, CPC; Sec. 151, CPC and under Order VII Rule 14(3) r/w Sec. 151 CPC CPC to recall PW-1, reopen and for production of additional documents. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Mohan Kumar M, for petitioner/plaintiff and perused the writ petition papers. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff is one for declaration to declare the registered sale deed dtd. 19/4/2006 executed by defendants No.1 to 6 in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of suit schedule property as null and void and to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property with consequential prayers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that commencement certificate dtd. 5/1/2008 alongwith annexure issued by Bengaluru International Airport Area Planning Authority, Devanahalli, would be absolutely necessary to establish the case of the plaintiff and it is submitted that the trial court committed an error in rejecting I.A.Nos.22 to 24 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to reopen at the stage of the plaintiff's evidence, to recall PW-1 and for production of additional documents. It is submitted that commencement certificate issued by Bengaluru International Airport Area Planning Authority indicates 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.68 and the sale deed indicates 2 acres 09 guntas. Therefore, to establish that the defendant Nos.1 to 6 have sold excess land in favour of defendant No.7, the document would be necessary. Learned counsel would submit that there is no delay in producing the document as observed by the trial court. Further, he would submit that the trial court is also not correct in observing that the petitioner-plaintiff is delaying the disposal of the suit. Thus, he prays to allow the writ petition as well as I.A.Nos.22- 24. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner-plaintiff. Moreover, the impugned order is neither perverse nor suffers from any material irregularity so as to warrant interference. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner-plaintiff. Moreover, the impugned order is neither perverse nor suffers from any material irregularity so as to warrant interference. Suit is one for declaration to declare the registered sale deed 19/4/2006 executed by defendant No.1 to 6 in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of land in Sy.No.68 to an extent of 2 acres 09 guntas, situated at Meesaganahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk as null and void and to declare that the petitioner-plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.7 who had purchased the property from defendant Nos.1 to 6, on an application to Bengaluru International Airport Area Planning Authority has obtained commencement certificate to form a layout. The commencement certificate obtained by defendant No.7 is not a relevant document for determining the dispute between the parties in the suit. The commencement certificate is a subsequent event which defendant No.7 has obtained from the planning authority. The document is of the year 2008. The suit is of the year 2007. There is no explanation as to why the plaintiff could not produce said document i.e., commencement certificate for more than 15 years. Moreover, the document is not a relevant document to decide the issue involved in the suit. There is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.