ORAL ORDER

2. The learned counsel for the respondent is present.

4. I have perused the impugned order and find that, Point No.1 framed was, whether the defendant No.1 has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application. The Court noticed that both the applications were filed in the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents with respect to the suit schedule property. It is noted from perusal of the applications filed by defendant No.1 that they were to re-open and to recall PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination. The Court noted that when the matter was posted for final arguments on merits, again an application was filed to cross-examine PW.1. After noting a catena of decisions of this Court, the Trial Court held that defendant No.1 has not made out any reasonable ground to allow the applications. IAs were accordingly rejected.