JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

This Civil Misc. Petition involves a challenge to allowing an application to re-open the evidence of the plaintiff for examination of further witnesses at the instance of the plaintiff-O.P.1 moved after closure of the examination of all witnesses from both sides.

2. Assailing the impugned order, Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants submitted that in the event the impugned order is sustained, it will be amounting to de novo trial of the suit. Referring to the unreported decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of K.K. Velusamy vrs. N. Palanisamy (Civil Appeal Nos. 2795-2796 of 2011 decided on 30.3.2011) reported vide 2011 (II) OLR (SC)-2013, particularly the observation made in paragraph-16 thereof submits that the petitioner has the full support of the observation therein, and therefore, prays for interference of the impugned order and rejection of the same.

3. In his objection, Sri Pradhan, learned counsel for O.P.1, referring to the application under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. and the submission made during course of hearing of the said application, contends that since the dispute involved a seri