By an order dated 211. 2006, this Revision was already disposed of, by allowing the same on merit, even though there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents.

2. The respondents had filed a petition for permission to reopen the case and there was delay in filing the petition and this Court already condoned the delay.

3. Today, learned counsel for the respondents, who filed the petition for the purpose of setting aside the order dated 211. 2006, was allowed to argue the revision on merit.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents.

5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when it remains a fact that the plaintiff had already filed an application in I.A.No.442 of 2005 in O.S.No.19 of 2003 before the lower Court for the same relief i.e., for reopening and reexamining P.W.1 for marking certain documents, which are stated to be filed along with the plaint, and the same was dismissed on 210. 2006, I do not think that another application can be filed for the very same relief. However, the learned trial Judge having correctly decided to dismiss the application, permitted P.W.1 to be reexamined for the purpose