JUDGMENT :

1. These four revisions arise between the same parties out of the same suit and so they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioner in all these Revisions is the plaintiff in the above suit.

3. He filed the said suit against the respondents 1 and 2 in the Revisions for partition of the plaint schedule properties and for separate possession of ?rd share in the suit schedule property.

4. He filed I.A. No.162 of 2019 under Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC to receive certain documents; I.A. No.131 of 2019 to implead five persons as defendants 3 to 7 in the suit; I.A. No.132 of 2019 to reopen the suit; and I.A. No.133 of 2019 to recall P.W-1 for the purpose of marking the documents which are mentioned in I.A. No.162 of 2019.

5. The Court below by separate orders dismissed all the applications and challenging the same, these Revisions are filed.

CRP Nos.1359 of 2019, 1353 of 2019 and 1376 of 2019

6. It is the contention of the petitioner in all these Revisions that he had filed earlier I.A. No.332 of 2017 under Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC to receive documents, but the trial Court dismissed it on 24.11.2017; that he then challenged the said order by way of Revision in CRP No.144 of 2018; and in the said CRP, he had sought permission to withdraw I.A. No.332 of 2017 with liberty to file a fresh application in accordance with law; that such permission was accorded and the CRP was disposed of on 06.03.2018; and, therefore, he filed I.A. No.162 of 2019 to mark ten documents in respect of which he claimed to have got knowledge only on 10.11.2017. He claimed that he did not know about these documents at the time of filing of the suit and so he could not file at that time. He claimed that his father died on 08.05.2016 and at that time he found some documents and through those documents, he could trace out the other documents. He also stated that between the year 2000 and 2017, he was abroad for a considerable period of time and so these documents are required to be received. The documents which he sought to file are as under:

1. 21.01.1995 Original Simple Sale Deed executed by father of plaintiff selling the ancestral property

2. 07.03.1988 Original Simple Sale Deed purchased by father of plaintiff and his brother

3. 25.03.1995 Original Simple Sale Deed executed by vendor of suit land to father of plaintiff

4. 20.06.1997 Original Partition Deed executed by the father of plaintiff

5. 05.01.2001 Original Customer's Receipt showing the amount sent by plaintiff to his brother (D2)

6. 14.09.2001 Original Customer's Receipt showing the amount sent by plaintiff to his father (D1)

7. 23.11.2001 Original Customer's Receipt showing the amount sent by plaintiff to his brother (D2)

8. 21.12.2001 Original Customer's Receipt showing the amount sent by plaintiff to his brother (D2)

9. 20.09.2002 Original Customer's Receipt showing the amount sent by plaintiff to his father (D1)

10. ---- Electricity Pass Book in the name of D1

7. Counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents/defendants opposing this application. They contended that the petitioner was having knowledge of these documents and petitioner's plea that he had no knowledge of them earlier cannot be believed. It is also contended that all these documents are fabricated documents and at a belated stage, these documents cannot be received in evidence.

8. In the order dated 30.04.2019 in I.A. No.162 of 2019, the Court below observed that there was no mention in the plaint or in the chief-examination affidavit by the petitioner that his father jointly purchased the plaint schedule property after selling Ac.0.39 gts of other land; that the only contention raised in the plaint is that the father of the petitioner had sold Ac.2.00 gts of land and contributed to the purchase of the suit schedule property. It also observed that in the present application I.A. No.162 of 2017, the petitioner had sought to file certain simple sale deeds to mark the same in evidence, and that this document would bring a whole the set