The main legal point established in the judgment is that interlocutory applications seeking to reopen evidence, give further evidence, and mark additional documents must be supported by genuine reasons and comply with relevant provisions from the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT

(Prayers:Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 14.07.2015 passed in I.A.No.293 of 2015 in O.S.No.340 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 14.07.2015 passed in I.A.No.294 of 2015 in O.S.No.340 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 14.07.2015 passed in I.A.No.295 of 2015 in O.S.No.340 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.)

Common Order:

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed assailing the order passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif Court at Kuzhithurai in I.A.Nos. 293, 294 and 295 of 2015 in O.S.No.340 of 2013. The original suit in O.S.No.340 of 2013 was one for partition. I.A.Nos.293, 294 and 295 of 2015 has been preferred by the petitioner / petitioner / plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in I.A.Nos.293, 294 and 295 of 2015.

2. I.A.No.293 of 2015 was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff, thereby allowing the plaintiff to give evidence in the original suit. I.A.No. 294 of 2015 was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to give further evidence on the side of the plaintiff. I.A.No.295 of 2015 was filed under Order XIII, Rule 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to mark the documents scheduled therein the said petition as Exhibits A8 to A11. All the three I.As came to be filed before the learned I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai when the original suit in O.S.No.340 of 2013 was posted for the arguments of both sides, that too for the third time.

3. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner and the respondents at length and anxiously perused the materials available on record.

4. A perusal of the records would reveal that the respondent / defendants have filed their counter in all the three interlocutory applications and thereafter by means of a common order, the learned I Additional District Munsif Court at Kuzhithurai on 14.07.2015 dismissed all the three interlocutory applications. Assailing the same, these three Civil Revision Petitions came to be filed.

5. When the suit was posted for arguments on 22.04.2014 for the second time, the petitioner / plaintiffs filed all these three interlocutory applications for the following grounds:

(i) During cross-examination of P.W1, a specific question was put up to P.W1 that the plaintiff did not appear before the Court for deposing her evidence because she was insane.

(ii) The plaintiff was unable to attend the Court on the date when the suit was listed due to chronic asthma and hence her husband was examined as P.W1.

(iii) The plaintiff has got one of the crucial documents for proper adjudication only at that later stage. In all the three interlocutory applications, the reasons pleaded by the petitioner / plaintiff are identical in a copy paste format.

6. The interlocutory application in I.A.No.295 of 2015 seeking the permission of the learned Trial Court to mark Exhibits A8 to A11 has been filed without stating any probable reason for the delay in filing the said interlocutory application, that too when the evidence of both the sides was closed and the case was posted for arguments.

7. The respondent / defendants have filed their counter and have resisted all those three interlocutory applications. On merits, the learned Trial Court dismissed all the three interlocutory applications after meticulous discussion. The learned Trial Court has observed in para 4 of the impugned order that the petitioner / plaintiff