all these allegations and contending that the property purchased by the petitioner from the other defendantswas within the limits available to such defendants. At the stage of evidence, it appears that the plaintiffs, in the suit, had reserved the right to adduce evidence in rebuttal ofthe evidence produced by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner adduced evidence and marked some documents. Thereafter, the plaintiffs examined the 2^^^ plaintiffasP.W.3 and marked Exs.A. 12 to A. 18 through the said witness.In the course of the cross examination, the petitionerissaidto have confronted P.W.3 with documents showing that P.W.3 and his family members had sold away various properties which would go to show that the properties claimed bythe plaintiffs in the suit are not available and in anyeventthe suit would fail on that ground. At that stage, the plaintiffs had filed l.A.No.247 of 2020 for deletion of item Nos.8and 10 of the suit schedule properties and the same was allowed on 11.03.2020. It is the case of the petitionerthat these items were removed as the petitioner had soughtto confront the witness of the plaintiffs with documents showing that these items of property had been soldbythe plaintiffs themselves. In that view of the matter, the
