1. The appellants are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original defendants. For the sake of convenience of the parties, they shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.

2. The plaintiffs have challenged an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15th January, 2008 in Chamber Summons No.1689 of 2007. By the said order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the Chamber Summons which is taken out by the defendants seeking liberty to lead evidence and to place on record all documents referred to in the affidavit of documents which was filed by the defendants. Grievance of the plaintiffs is that after they had led their evidence, the defendants had specifically informed the Court that they did not wish to lead any evidence. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that after having taken a stand not to lead evidence, it was not open for the defendants to subsequently file application seeking permission of the court to lead evidence. In order to appreciate the rival contention, it is necessary to state the brief facts of the case :-

3. Original plaintiffs have a suit for specific performance on 16th January, 1979. On 25th March, 1980, all the defendants had filed their written statement. In February 1995, an affidavit of documents was filed by the defendants giving a list of 59 documents which were referred to and relied on by the defendants. Sometime in July, 2003, the original defendant no.1 died and defendant nos.2 and 3 retired and therefore, the present defendants were substituted in their place. On 2nd August, 2003, they filed their written statement. On 16th June, 2003, an affidavit of plaintiff no.3 was filed in lieu of examination-in-chief. Seven issues were framed by the Court on 28th August, 2003. The plaintiff no.1 filed his affidavit of evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief on 25th September, 2003. After his evidence was over, the plaintiffs closed their case. The defendants through their Counsel made a statement that they did not wish to lead evidence.

4. Matter was fixed for hearing and final disposal and during the course of hearing, the plaintiffs were advised to amend their plaint. Accordingly, they took out Chamber Summons No.262/2007 for adding para 12a to the plaint. This Chamber Summons was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 16th June, 2007 and direction was given to both the parties that they were at liberty to lead evidence if advised and necessary, on the basis of pleas raised in the amended plaint as well as the written statement.

5. Thereafter, the defendants took out Chamber Summons No.1689/2007 allowing them to lead detailed evidence on the ground that the documents were lost and now they were traced and therefore, permission was sought to lead evidence and bring on record the original documents. The learned Single Judge by order dated 15th January, 2008 allowed the Chamber Summons.

6. Shri Madan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendants once having taken a decision not to lead evidence, ought not to have been permitted to take an about turn and seek permission to lead evidence. He submitted that after the plaintiffs were permitted to amend the plaint, the learned Single Judge by his order dated 16th June, 2007 has permitted the parties to lead evidence only on the amended plaint para 12a and amended written statement, if any. He submitted that the defendants, therefore, ought not have been granted permission to lead evidence in respect of the entire case. It is submitted that the grounds mentioned in the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons were not sufficient to make out a case that the defendants could not produce the said documents earlier. He submitted that the documents were referred to in the affidavit of documents filed by the defendants in 1995 and though the documents were referred to 1995, they chose not to lead evidence. He submitted that the grounds