A trial court must reopen evidence to consider new documents that are crucial for determining the case, even if it is after arguments are concluded, to uphold the ends of justice.

ORDER :

Heard Smt. K. Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.3 and Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs and perused the material on record.

2. Since all these civil revision petitions are filed against the common order passed in I.A.Nos.631 of 2024, 756 of 2024, 757 of 2024 and 10 of 2025 in O.S.No.101 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Bhongir, dated 19.06.2025, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.3 submits that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Judge at Bhongir for perpetual injunction and the trial proceedings were completed and the matter was posted for Judgment and at that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.631 of 2024, 756 of 2024, 757 of 2024 and 10 of 2025 seeking to reopen the case for reopening the evidence of D.W.1 by recalling D.W.1 and for receiving the original order copy in W.P.No.39321 of 2016 dated 30.09.2024 as it is essential to reopen the evidence of D.W.1 for the purpose of adducing additional evidence and for marking a copy of order passed by this Court in W.P.No.39321 of 2016 dated 30.09.2024 and the same were dismissed by the impugned common order. She submits that the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that auction was conducted by the petitioner and the successful bidder has paid the sale consideration and claiming right over the property and if the suit is disposed of without receiving the said order copy on record, it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner being financer. She further submits that the required document is crucial to come to the conclusion whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable or not even though the suit is for injunction and requested to allow these revision petitions by setting aside the impugned common order passed by the Trial Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs based on the counter submits that all the impugned applications are filed only to drag on the matter which will cause hardship to these respondents/plaintiffs. He further submits that as the petitioner has not assigned specific reasons to recall the evidence of D.W.1 and to receive the document and the matter was reserved for Judgment, the trial Court has rightly dismissed all the impugned applications and there is no need to interfere with the common order passed by the trial Court and requested to dismiss all these revision petitions.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs has relied on the following Judgment;

1. K.K.Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy , 2011(1) SCC 275

6. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are filed O.S.No.101 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Judge at Bhongir, for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against the petitioner/defendant No.3 and the respondent Nos.3 to 6/defendant Nos.1, 2, 5 and 4. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.631 of 2024, 756 of 2024, 757 of 2024 and 10 of 2025 to recall D.W.1 for adducing additional evidence and to receive the original order copy in W.P.No.39321 of 2016 dated 30.09.2024. The Court below held that the suit is at the stage of Judgment and the petitioner has not assigned specific reasons for recalling the evidence of D.W.1 and for receiving the document and dismissed all the I.As as devoid of merits by the impugned common order.

7. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintif