COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions are filed against the order and decretal order dated 20.10.2017 made in IA.Nos.600 & 601 of 2017 in OS.No.422 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, thereby allowing the petition to reopen and the petition seeking permission to receive documents.

2. In both the civil revision petitions, the petitioner is the fourth defendant and the first respondent is the plaintiff. The first respondent filed suit for declaration declaring that the order passed in Trust OP.No.267 of 2006 dated 24.04.2007 is non-est in the eye of law and not binding on the plaintiff and the fifth defendant. The first respondent also prayed for declaration declaring that the sale deed dated 18.06.2007 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the fourth defendant is null and void and declaring that the sale deed dated 26.10.2007 executed by the third defendant in favour of the fourth defendant is null and void with permanent injunction. He also prayed for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property from the fourth defendant. While pending the suit, the first respondent filed petitions to reopen and seeking permission to receive documents. Both the petitions were allowed and aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions have been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents which are sought to be produced were neither referred to in the plaint nor specific pleadings were allocated with respect of the documents. Even in the cause of action and also from the entire averments of the plaint, the first respondent did not even whisper about the documents. The plaint should be presented in terms of Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC. It requires to give particulars and details about the documents which should be contained in the plaint. That apart, Order 7 mandates production of documents along with plaint. As such the first respondent shall include those documents which are not sought to receive in the list of documents of the plaint and shall produce it into the Court when the plaint was presented. He further submitted that the first respondent filed petition in IA.No.576 of 2016 for the very same relief and the same was withdrawn unconditionally and dismissed.

3.1 He further submitted that the first respondent came to understand about the documents only after filing the suit and as such, admittedly the first respondent did not whisper about those documents and not relied in the plaint or referred upon in the plaint averments. Therefore, the present applications are not at all maintainable under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC. Rule 14 of Order 7 of CPC contains that the documents relied on in the plaint. Therefore, the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 or Section 151 of CPC is applicable only with reference to those documents which are already relied upon or referred to in the plaint. Therefore, totally strange or unknown documents cannot be introduced during pendency of the trial. In fact, both the side evidence were over and arguments also over and when the suit was posted for filing written submissions on either side, the first respondent filed these petitions. The earlier petition in IA.No.576 of 2016 was withdrawn after filing the counter unconditionally. Therefore, both the petitions are nothing but very same attempt just to drag the proceedings. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of those petitions. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Bagai Construction Vs. Gupta Building Material Stores reported in 2013 (14) SCC 1 (ii) Ram Rati Vs. Mange Ram reported in 2016 (11) SCC 296 (iii) Gayathri Vs. M.Girish reported in 2016 (4) SCC 142

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent filed suit for declaration and injunction as against the petitioner and other respondents herein on the ground that the suit property was dedicated to the first responden