B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. The revision involves two questions to answer viz., (1) whether before reserving a matter for orders/decree/award/judgment by Court, even any evidence of either side or both sides closed any application for reopen is mandatory? and (2) whether Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC or Section 151 CPC that is applicable to examine a new witness by either side after formal closure of evidence? The revision petitioners-plaintiffs maintained the revision impugning the order dated 25.10.2016 passed in I.A. No. 1319 of 2016 in O.S. No. 344 of 2005 by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on the application of the petitioners/defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 14 to 16 showing the two plaintiffs and other defendants among defendants 1 to 16 as respondent Nos. 1 to 10, filed under Section 151 C.P.C. to cause examine the self same one of the attestors to Exs. B7 and 15, registered gift deeds as D.W. 5, that was since allowed.

2. The grounds of revision impugning said order of the lower Court are that, the lower Court committed grave illegality in improperly exercising the discretion for reopening the evidence for the purpose of examination of the proposed witness as attestor to the documents even such an opportunity is not availed by the defendants earlier having relied upon the document and they filed the petition to re-open the evidence for cross examination of the attestor of the purported Will and at that stage not even choose to examine this witness as attestor to the so-called two documents of gifts and having not availed and for the latches and lacuna they cannot be allowed to fill up the gaps and the provision is not meant for that and the averments of the affidavit petition are laconic without even sufficient reasons, much less existence of bona fides and the order is thereby liable to be set-aside by dismissing the petition before the trial Court in allowing the revision.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs in the course of hearing reiterated the contentions in the grounds of revision and elaborate arguments submitted by referring to several expressions of the constitutional Courts. Whereas it is the submission of the learned counsel for the successful petitioners before the lower Court as co-respondents 1 to 8 to the revision that the order of the lower Court no way requires interference for same is supported by reasons and the revision is liable to be dismissed by placing reliance on the several expressions of the constitutional courts to support their contention.

4. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and learned counsel for respondents 1 to 8 as referred supra. Perused the material on record.

5. The factual matrix of the case is that earlier with evidence of P.W. 1 from closure of plaintiffs' evidence and of D.Ws. 1 and 4 from closure of the defendants' evidence, the matter was posted for arguments. It was in the course of arguments, from what the plaintiffs contended of the so-called gift deeds not proved though compulsorily attestable documents and despite denial. It is needful to say, even earlier when the suit riped for arguments, at the stage of arguments being advanced by the defendants sought to examine D.W. 4, one of the attestors to the so-called will-Ex. B29 and the Court permitted examination of the witness by reopening the defendants evidence at that stage and after that the matter again posted for arguments and after completing the arguments of plaintiffs, the application covered by the impugned order of the lower Court was filed which reads that in the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property sought by the plaintiffs, leave about, defendant Nos. 5 & 6, who filed another suit O.S. No. 708 of 2007 and both suits were clubbed together for joint trial, after closure of joint trial and closure of the evidence, the matter is when coming up for arguments of both the matters, it is noticed the non-cross