The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties are estopped from marking any document to substantiate their claim after the trial is over, and that a suit must be filed by a proper person with proper authorization.

B. RAJENDRAN, J

1. O.S.A. Nos. 182 and 183 of 2009 have been filed by the plaintiff as against the order of dismissal dated 10.12.2010 made in Application No. 5471 of 2010 and 5472 of 2010 in C.S. No. 632 of 1997 dismissing the applications filed for re-opening of evidence and to re-call PW1 for the purpose of marking certain documents.

2. O.S.A. No. 221 of 2011 was filed by the defendants 7 and 8 against the order dated 10.12.2010 made in Application No. 5550 of 2010 in C.S. No. 632 of 1997 praying to suspend the interim order already granted on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the suit.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their litigative status in the suit as 'Plaintiff' and 'defendants'.

4. The facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeals in O.S.A. Nos. 182 and 183 of 2011 are as follows:-

(i) The plaintiff has filed two applications namely Application No. 5471 of 2010 and 5472 of 2010 in C.S. No. 632 of 1997 before the learned single Judge invoking the proviso to Order IV Rule 8 and Order 17 Rule 7 of Original Side Rules read with Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to re-open the evidence and to recall PW1 to mark various sale deeds, as specifically set out in paragraphs 27 and 29 of the proof affidavit of PW1. The sale deeds sought to be marked pertains to plot No.7; the Board resolution of the plaintiff company; Form 32; letter dated 28.07.2008 written by the sixth defendant to the commissioner of police with a copy marked to PW1/plaintiff and e-mail dated 24.07.2008 sent by the fifth defendant to the plaintiff.

(ii) According to the plaintiff, the suit in C.S. No. 632 of 1997 was filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 03.08.1994. The suit was filed, signed and verified by Subbiah, father of the plaintiff, who died on 29.12.2005. After the death of his father, the plaintiff is prosecuting the suit after getting necessary order dated 09.03.2010 from this Court. It is also stated that he is also one of the Directors of the plaintiff company.

(iii) Earlier, when the trial in the suit commenced, a proof affidavit was filed on behalf of PW1. In paragraph 27 of the proof affidavit, details as regards ownership of the entire property located at No.1, Lattice Bridge Road, the details regarding the various sale deeds in favour of various companies, which are sister companies of the plaintiff, were given. Further, in para No. 28 to 30, the details regarding certain small portion owned by third parties, as per the sale deed executed by the defendants 1 to 9, were also mentioned. Even though the details of the above aspects were mentioned in the proof affidavit, the documents in support thereof were not marked under the bonafide impression that there is no dispute in so far as to the plaintiff owning the other properties also, that too as per the sale deeds executed by the defendants 1 to 9 themselves, in favour of various sister concerns and other parties of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, for the first time, written submissions were made and that too after the third time when the matter was argued before the learned single Judge, in which a specific statement was made that the defendants 1 to 9 deny the ownership of the plaintiff to the properties. Therefore, it has become necessary for the plaintiff to file the application to recall PW1 to mark those documents, which are mentioned in para-27 of the proof affidavit in so far as it relates to the title of the property under 29 sale deeds.

(iv) The plaintiff would further contend that there is no need or necessity earlier to file the applications as there was no dispute at all that the plaintiff is the owner of the other properties baring a small portion. The plaintiff further contend that he has marked the topo sketch, Ex.P5 which clearly indicate that plot No.1 owned by the plaintiff, plot Nos.

3, 4, 5 owned by the plaintiff and his sister concerns, plot Nos. 6 and 7 owned by t