The power to entertain applications after the conclusion of the trial is not a straitjacket formula and may be exercised in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court's process.

JUDGMENT

A.K.Rath, J. - This petition challenges the order dated 24.8.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur in C.S. No.62 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has rejected the application of the plaintiff to mark the documents as exhibits after closure of evidence.

2. This is the third journey of the petitioner before this Court. The dispute lies in a very narrow compass. Suffice it to say that the petitioner instituted a suit for partition. The defendants entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. After closure of evidence, the plaintiff filed an application to exhibit the letter dated 14.10.1974 of E.S. Mohanty issued in favour of Binodini Mohanty and the letter dated 30.10.1976 of Binodini Mohanty to D.E. Mohanty. The same having been rejected, the petitioner filed WPC No.773 of 2012 before this Court. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 12.8.2013. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.439 of 2013. The petitioner did not press the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal was disposed of as not pressed. In the interregnum witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants. Thereafter, another application seeking self-same relief was filed. Learned trial judge came to hold that earlier petition was rejected. The order was confirmed by this Court. The documents are no way connected to the present suit. Evidence from both the sides has been closed. In the event the documents are marked as exhibits, the same will cause prejudice to the defendants. Held so, he dismissed the application.

3. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.D. Das, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

4. Mr. Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order of this Court, after closure of evidence of the plaintiff, the will was exhibited with objection. In the changed circumstance, the petition was filed. He further submits that if there is abuse of process of the court, or if interest of justice requires the court to do something or take note of something, the discretion to do those things does not disappear merely because the arguments are heard. The convention that no application should be entertained once the trial or hearing is concluded and the case is reserved for judgment is not a straitjacket formula. There can always be exceptions in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court. No prejudice shall be caused to the defendants, since they will get the chance of rebuttal. To buttress the submission, he relies on the decision of the apex Court in the case of K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy , (2011) AIRSCW 2296.

5. Per contra, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the matter has attained finality. The petitioner earlier filed an application. After closure of evidence, the plaintiff filed an application to exhibit the letters dated 14.10.1974 and 30.10.1976. The same having been rejected, the petitioner filed WPC No.773 of 2012 before this Court. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.439 of 2013. He withdrew the writ appeal. There is no changed circumstance. The application has been filed to protract the litigation. In the meantime the suit has been posted for judgment.

6. In K.K. Velusamy (supra), the apex Court held thus;

"12. The amended provisions of the Code contemplate and expect a trial court to hear the arguments immediately after the completion of evidence and then proceed to judgment. Therefore, it was unnecessary to have an express provision for re-opening the evidence to examine a fresh witness or for recalling any witness for further examination. But if there is a time gap between the completion of evidence and hearing of the arguments, for whatsoever reason, and if in that interregnum, a party comes acro