M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. These Original Side appeals have been preferred by the appellants being the defendant Nos.24 to 27 and 29 in the suit filed in C.S.No.410 of 1982 against the orders passed in Application Nos.2006 to 2008 of 2012 in C.S.No.410 of 1982 dated 18.10.2012.

2. The respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs herein filed a suit on the file of this Court in C.S.No.410 of 1982 against the appellants and other respondents for a declaration that the suit properties were held for the benefit of the plaintiffs by the first defendant(since deceased). A further relief has been claimed that the deceased first defendant did not have any right to alienate the suit properties. The plaintiffs also sought for accounting apart from other incidental reliefs.

3. The suit was taken up for hearing for final disposal in the year 2000. After hearing the counsels appearing for the parties, after the conclusion of the trial, it was posted on 19.07.2000 for pronouncement of judgment. However, the learned single Judge (as he then was), could not pronounce the judgment on the appointed day. Incidentally, he retired on 24.07.2000. Thereafter, the suit was never listed and taken up for hearing before any other learned Judge.

4. The Applications in A. Nos. 2006 to 2008 of 2012 have been filed by the respondents 1 to 4, who are plaintiffs in the suit, in the month of June 2010. Application No.2006 of 2012 has been filed to re-open the evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit. Application No.2007 of 2012 has been filed to recall the evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit. Application No.2008 of 2012 has been filed to permit the applicants/plaintiffs to mark the documents as shown in the annexure attached to the application.

5. It has been contended in those three applications that there is a suit pending before the High Court of Mumbai in Suit No.4538 of 1993. The suit has been filed by the relatives and descendants of the deceased first defendant herein and defendants 24 to 29. The appellants are parties to the suit. In the said suit, the appellants and their predecessors have filed the following documents.

6. The above-said documents would clearly substantiate the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant's father received money from the plaintiffs' father and out of the income derived from the firm of the plaintiffs' father, the suit properties have been purchased. There are also number of admissions made in the documents filed before the High Court of Mumbai, which are inclusive of the pleadings. Therefore, those documents are very vital for the purpose of deciding the present suit. The plaintiffs are not parties to the said suit. Therefore, they have applied for certified copies of the same and filed these applications thereafter. Hence, it was prayed that they should be allowed.

7. The application was resisted by the appellants herein on the ground of delay. It has been further stated that the plaintiffs were not diligent in pursuing the suit and they cannot start a fresh trial after conclusion of the earlier one. The documents sought to be marked, cannot be marked by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not taken any steps to bring the suit for hearing. Therefore, the applications are liable to be dismissed.

8. The learned single Judge, on the materials available on records, was pleased to allow all the three applications. While allowing the applications, the learned single Judge has observed that the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 4 are not responsible for the inordinate delay. The delay has been caused by the Court subsequent to the judgment reserved. In the present case, the applicants came to know about the suit in the High Court of Mumbai and obtained the certified copies of the documents sought to be marked and thereafter filed the applications. It is for them to prove the documents in the manner known to law. The documents can be allowed to be received subject to their proof and relevancy. Therefor