S. Vimala, J.

1. Application No. 2006 of 2012 has been filed by the plaintiffs/Applicants to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs. Application No. 2007 of 2012 has been filed by the plaintiffs/Applicants to recall the plaintiffs for the purpose of adducing additional evidence. Application No. 2008 of 2012 has been filed by the plaintiffs/Applicants to permit the plaintiffs to file and mark the additional documents. In order to understand the scope of the relief sought for in these three Applications, it is necessary to find out the remedy sought for in the suit.

2. The suit has been filed for a declaration that: a) the suit properties were/are properties held in trust for the benefit of the plaintiffs, by the first defendant, and that he had no right to alienate the same; (b) that defendants 2 to 23 have no right or title or interest on the basis of alienation made by the first defendant; (c) for accounts; (d) for possession and for other alternative relief.

2.1. The first plaintiff wanted to file the following documents, in additional evidence:-

"(i) Plaint in C.S. No. 4538 of 1993 on the file of High Court of Judicature at Bombay;

(ii) Written Statement dated 19.07.2000 filed by Vivek Goenka & Others in the suit in C.S. No. 4538 of 1993;

(iii) Photo copy of the partnership deed, dated 30.06.1926;

(iv) Notice of motion in Chamber Application No. 256 of 1994, dated 25.01.1994;

(v) Counter affidavit to the notice of motion in Chamber Application No. 256 of 1994 dated 24.02.1994;

(vi) Copy of the order dated 05.12.1995 in Chamber Application No. 256 of 1994 attached with affidavit of Ashok Pradhan;

(vii) Copy of the reply dated 27.06.1994 in the notice of motion in Chamber Application No. 256 of 1994."

2.2. All these documents have been stated to have been marked as Exs.P-438, P-439, P-440, P-441, P-443, P-444 and P-445 in the proceedings before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

3. The Applications are opposed on the ground that these Applications have been filed belatedly and that those documents are not admissible in evidence.

4. In order to put both sides on focus, this Court directed both sides to file the memo with regard to relevancy, admissibility and method of proof of documents. Accordingly, both sides have filed the memo.

5. In order to appreciate the relevancy of documents, it is necessary to look into the brief facts of the case:-

"6.1. The suit (at Bombay High Court) relates to a claim for partition made by brothers' children of the first defendant Ramnath Goenka, in which some of the parties in the present suit were also parties therein. In the said suit Vivek Goenka (D24 herein) has filed a written statement therein.

6.2. Defendant No. 24 in the present suit is the defendant No. 1 in the Bombay suit. The documents are stated to be certified xerox copies of the original documents (certified by the Bombay High Court and not certified copies of photo copies as contended by the defendants).

6.3. The first defendant therein (D-24 herein) is stated to have: (a) filed a written statement, (b) an objection petition to the notice of motion (Application No. 256 of 1994) and (c) made certain admissions with regard to the earnings of his father and mode of acquisition of property."

6. The defendant herein objected to the marking of documents on the following grounds:--

"(i) The Bombay suit in C.S. No. 4538 of 1993 was filed by relatives of Ramnath Goenka (D1) for the relief of declaration that the properties belong to Hindu Undivided family and for partition. The plaintiffs are not parties to the Bombay suit and therefore, those documents cannot be marked through the plaintiff.

(ii) Bombay suit was not taken up for trial and it was dismissed as withdrawn. Those documents were not proved in that suit. In other words, the rival contentions were not tested.

(iii) The documents produced from the Bombay suit are not public documents as contemplated under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter will be referre