ORDER : B.M. SHYAM PRASAD, J. The petitioner is the third defendant in O.S.No.157/2001 on the file of the Civil Judge [Sr.Dn], Kadur [‘the civil Judge’] which is decreed by the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2005 [Annexure-B] in part holding that the deceased plaintiff [now represented by the first to sixth respondents] will be entitled to one ninth share in the suit schedule properties dismissing the plaint as against 'B' schedule property holding that the petitioner is the absolute owner thereof. 2. The petitioner's appeal as against this judgment and decree in RFA No.598/2006 [PAR] is disposed of by this Court on 03.02.2023 [Annexure- C]. The Court, insofar as the petitioner's case that he has borrowed huge loans and developed item Nos.6 and 7 of the plaint schedule 'A' properties, has observed thus: "However, since it is contended by Sri.E.Uma Mahesha that he had raised huge amounts of loan and had improved item Nos.6 and 7, it would be open for him to plead and prove this fact before the Final decree Court and request that the repayment of the loan be taken into account, while dividing the properties." The final decree proceedings filed after the Civil Court's judgment and decree dated 22.12.2005 is continued for partition by metes and bounds. 3. The petitioner, in terms of the liberty reserved by this Court, has filed applications [IA Nos.11 and 12]. The petitioner's application in IA No.11 is for leave to file objections to the final decree petition and the application in IA No.12 is for leave to produce documents. The civil Court viz., the Senior Civil Judge, Kadur has disposed both these applications observing thus after adverting to the liberty reserved by this Court in the first appeal. "In view of the aforesaid specific observations, it is open to the 2nd respondent to establish that he has raise huge amounts of loan and had improved item No.6 an d7 properties and it is also open for him to request this court that the repayment of loan to be taken into account while dividing the property. It is also observed that it is also open for the 2 nd respondent to seek for allotment of item No.6 and 7 properties to his share, if he is able to establish that he had in-facts raised huge loans and improved the said properties. It is also observed that it is also open for the 2 nd respondent to seek for allotment of item No.6 and 7 properties to his share, if he is able to establish that he had in-facts raised huge loans and improved the said properties. If the aforesaid specific findings are taken into consideration, the enlisted documents referred above are not at all relevant for the purpose of observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence, this application is also devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the points No.1 and 2 under consideration are answered in the Negative." 4. Sri Onkara K.B., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is indeed aggrieved by the civil Court's refusal to permit leave to file objections to the application for final decree but the petitioner's grievance would be redressed if this Court disposes of the petition observing that the petitioner's right to seek equity in terms of this Court's observation based on the pleadings in the original proceedings is not prejudiced because of the observations by the civil Court. 5. As regards the leave to produce documents, Sri Onkara K.B. submits that these documents are essentially the bank statement, a copy of sale deed, affidavit signed by the propositus and loan documents. The learned counsel submits that these documents would demonstrate that the petitioner has expanded his own finances and also borrowed money to develop item Nos. 6 and 7 of the suit schedule 'A' property and therefore he is entitled to seek allotment of these properties exclusively to his share as observed by this Court. 6. The question of interference with the Civil Court's impugned order is examined in the light of these two submissions, and the questions are: [a] Whether this Court must interfere in W.P.No.23236/2025 and permit the petitioner to file Objections to the Final Decree petition. [b] Whether this Court must interfere in W.P.No.31506/2025 and permit the petitioner to produce additional documents. 7. This Court must first observe that the petitioner's right to prove his assertion that he has availed loans to improve Item Nos.6 and 7 of the suit schedule 'A' property stands vindicated by this Court's order in RFA No.598/2006 [PAR]. Therefore, he must be at liberty to rely upon this Court's observation in this regard and also the pleadings, if any, in the original proceedings. Therefore, he must be at liberty to rely upon this Court's observation in this regard and also the pleadings, if any, in the original proceedings. Therefore, the petition in W.P.No.23236/2025 must be disposed of with such observation. 8. As regards the petitioner's grievance with the Civil Court's decision to reject the application for leave to produce documents, this Court must observe that the Civil Court has considered none of the reasons assigned. This Court is of the view that the Civil Court should have examined the merits of the request in the light of the liberty reserved so that the petitioner's right to seek allotment on the afore grounds is not rendered illusory. As such, the following: ORDER [A] The writ petition in W.P.No.31506/2025 is allowed in-part setting aside the Civil Courts' order insofar as it rejects the petitioner's application [IA.12] for leave to produce documents restoring the application for consideration after due opportunity to the respondents, and [B] The petition in W.P.No.23236/2025 stands disposed of with the observation as aforesaid.