C O M M O N O R D E R

These three civil revision petitions are preferred by the Plaintiff.

2.The suit has been presented for a mandatory injunction to re-

move a fence and also for the purpose of restoration of a pathway. The parties completed their pleadings on 10.12.2016. Three months there- after, a communication was addressed from Noorul Islam Jumma Palli- vasan. Since the pleadings were completed and the evidence had com- menced, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 (2) of CPC to receive the additional document.

3.Apart from that, the petitioner also wanted to reopen the evi-

dence and to recall DW2 for the purpose of examination. The said appli-

cation was dismissed against which the present civil revision petition.

4.Heard Mr.R.Gunaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondents though served, have not entered appearance. A perusal of the record shows that the commencement of the suit itself was only in the year 2016. Whereas the document has come into force pending the litigation. Whether a post litem document will be helpful or not is for the court to decide at the time of the final disposal of the suit. To a party who has approached the court, the court must be liberal in granting all opportunity for the purpose of proving his/her case. By shutting out the evidence, it might only give be a ground of an appeal for the plaintiff to raise and if he convinces the Appellate Court, it might go back into a never ending cycle of litigation.

5.I feel in case the application had been allowed in the year 2017, perhaps the suit itself would have been disposed of by now. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, I feel, in the interest of justice, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to let in evidence as the form of documents which has come pending the litigation. I make it clear that I am only granting leave for the purpose of receipt of the documents. It is up to the court to decide on proof and relevancy at the time of final disposal. Consequently I.A.Nos.200, 201 and 202 of 2017 will stand allowed. The Trial Court is requested to reopen the evidence and permit the parties to depose all the documents dated 07.03.2017. The suit being of the year 2016, being more than 7 years old, the Court is requested to give priority to the same and dispose of the suit within a period of nine (9) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

6.These civil revision petitions stand allowed with the above directions. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

19.09.2023 nst Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citations : Yes/No V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN.J, nst To: The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai.

C.R.P.Nos.2778, 2779 and 2780 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.13161 of 2017

19.09.2023