The main legal point established is that the plaintiff cannot file applications at a belated stage to fill up lacunae in the pleadings and evidence, and the court should ensure a continuous process of recording evidence and timely decision-making.

ORDER :

1. All the three Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of Original Suit No.445 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Accordingly, it is proposed to dispose of all the three CRPs, through this common order.

2. a) CRP No.16 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff assailing the order dated 05.11.2020 in IA No.719 of 2020 in OS No.445 of 2014 filed under Order-VII, Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for reception of documents.

b) CRP No.18 of 2021 is filed by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 05.11.2020 in IA No.718 of 2020 in OS No.445 of 2014 filed under Order-18, Rule 17 r/w. Sec.151 of CPC for recall of PW.1.

c) CRP No.19 of 2021 is filed by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 15.11.2020 in IA No.717 of 2020 in OS No.445 of 2014 filed u/s.151 of CPC to reopen the suit for the purpose of reception of documents, through PW.1.

3. All the above three Interlocutory Applications were dismissed by the Court below. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of above IA Nos.719, 718 and 717 of 2020, the plaintiff has filed these CRP Nos.16, 18 and 19 of 2021 respectively.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit.

5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Detailed submissions have been made on both sides which are more or less on pleaded lines in above IAs and counters. Therefore, it may not be necessary to refer such submissions in detail. However, they are received due consideration of the Court. Perused the material available on record.

6. The plaintiff has filed the original suit for partition and separate possession against the sole defendant. After filing written statement on 01.09.2014, issues were settled. During trial, evidence on behalf of plaintiff and defendant was concluded and arguments were heard. At this belated stage, these applications came to be filed in IA No.719 of 2020 under Order-VII, Rule-14 (3) CPC for reception of documents, in IA No.718 of 2020 under Order-18, Rule-7 CPC for recall of PW.1 and in IA No.717 of 2020 u/s. 151 of CPC to reopen the suit. The trial Court, vide separate orders, dismissed all three applications.

7. The main averments of the affidavits filed in support of these three applications in IA Nos.719, 718 and 719 of 2020 are that the defendant is the brother of plaintiff, born through another wife of his father. Earlier OS No.292 of 1993 was filed between the parties and copies of judgment and decree and plaintiff’s evidence in OS No.292 of 1993 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad are very much essential to prove the case of plaintiff herein. Therefore, it is just and essential to receive these documents by recalling PW.1 by reopening the original suit, wherein the evidence on both sides is closed and the case is being posted for arguments.

8. The defendant has filed a common counter in all three IAs. The main averments of the counter are that the plaintiff has failed to convince the Court that for sufficient reasons as contemplated under Order-VII, Rule-14 (3) CPC, he could not file the said documents. In fact, these documents are well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and they are in his possession as on the date of filing of the suit and the plaintiff intentionally and deliberately failed to file these documents and has filed these applications at belated stage. In fact, having vexed with the attitude of the plaintiff, the trial Court has directed the parties to file written arguments. Accordingly, the defendant has filed his written arguments. After going through the written arguments of defendant, to overcome the defendant’s case, all these three IAs are filed. The defendant never accepted the plaintiff as his brother either in OS No.292 of 1993 or anywhere in the said suit, the said documents have no relevancy with the facts of the present case. There are no m