ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revisions Petitions have been filed under Section 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 15.04.2021 made in I.A. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 2021 in O.S. No. 75 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai.

1. These Civil Revisions are directed against the orders passed in I.A. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 2021 in O.S. No. 75 of 2011, dated 15.04.2021 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai, in dismissing the petitions filed to reopen the case, for recalling PW-1 and for reception of additional evidence, respectively.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and he filed the suit in O.S. No. 75 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai, claiming the reliefs to declare that the suit properties are the absolute properties of the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. After completion of trial, when the case was posted for arguments, the plaintiff has filed three applications, one in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 under Section 151 CPC, for reopening the case, second in I.A. No. 2 of 2021 under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for recalling PW-1 and the third one in I.A. No. 3 of 2021 under 7 Rule 14 CPC for reception of additional documents. The learned District Munsif, after enquiry, has passed the impugned orders separately on 15.04.2021, dismissing all the three petitions. Aggrieved by the said orders of dismissal, the plaintiff has come forward with the present revisions.

3. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that several suits relating to the suit property were disposed of earlier, that the petitioner has now only traced out the plaint, written statement, judgment and decree and other records, that the said documents were not produced earlier and the same are very much necessary to prove the case of the plaintiff and that the failure of the plaintiff to file the documents earlier, is not wanton and is liable to be condoned and that the said documents are to be received as additional evidence and PW-1 is to be recalled, for exhibiting those documents and for that purpose, the case has to be reopened.

4. The 8th respondent/8th defendant has filed a counter statement, which was adopted by the respondents 1 to 3 opposing the above applications and further stated that the case was posted for arguments more than 5 hearings, that the petitioner without showing any good cause or sufficient reasons and without any pleadings in the plaint, without any reservations in the plaint and without mentioning the above said Court proceedings in the plaint, has filed the above petitions for reception of additional documents with male fide intention to protract the proceedings, that the suit is pending from 2011 onwards and the plaintiff has come forward with the above documents after 10 years and that therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the above petitions.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on a decision of Honourable Supreme in Vadiraj Nagappan vs. Sharachandra Prabhakar, 2009 (4) SCC 410 and the relevant passages shown by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner are reproduced hereunder:

“24. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are unable to agree with Mr. Narasimha that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in rejecting the appellants' application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC since, according to Mr. Narasimha, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent as he would be given a chance of cross-examination after re-examination in chief by the plaintiff.

25. In our view, though the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC have been interpreted to include applications to be filed by the parties for recall of witnesses, the main purpose of the said Rule is to enable the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which