ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 05.12.2017 made in I.A.Nos.972 & 1069 of 2017 in O.S.No.665 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem, thereby allowing the petition to permit the respondents to produce certain documents as documentary evidence.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration declaring that the sale deed dated 15.05.2002 as null and void and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. After closing the evidence of both sides, the respondents filed a petition seeking permission to receive additional documents. Both the petitions were allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after closing the plaintiffs side evidence the petitioners filed a petition to re-open and re-call of P.W.1. Both the petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners preferred CRP (PD) Nos.4034 & 4035 of 2016 before this Court and the same were dismissed by an order dated 07.06.2017 and directed the Trial Court to consider the issue whether the Court can Suo-motu directed the respondents 1 and 2 to let in evidence as per the Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC on merits within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after giving an opportunity to the petitioners. Further directed that if the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence in the suit has to be re-opened, give an opportunity to the respondents 1 and 2 to let in evidence and the evidence already taken on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 shall be eschewed.

4. Accordingly, the Trial Court re-opened the evidence of respondents 1 and 2 herein. At that juncture, the respondents 1 and 2 filed a petition seeking permission to receive the additional documents, which were not pleaded by them in the written statement. The documents which were sought to be produced before the Trial Court were not even whispered in the written statement filed by the respondents 1 and 2. It is completely against the provision of Order 8 Rule 1(A) of CPC. If the respondents 1 and 2 are allowed to produce those documents, it would cause prejudice to the petitioners, since they were denied the opportunity of filing the reply statement for the newly introduced documents. Therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the petitions with a permission to produce the documents. It is contrary to the settled legal position mandated under Order 8 Rule 1(A) of CPC. The sudden introduction of documents which were never mentioned in the pleadings are not preferred to produce before the Court below. In fact, the respondents 1 and 2 were already granted opportunity to re-open their evidence and even then they did not file any application to produce those documents. After a period of ten years, they have come forward with the present application and introduced new documents, that too, without any pleading in their written statement.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration, declaring that the sale deed dated 15.05.2002 registered vide document No.1095 of 2002 as null and void and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The said sale deed was registered in pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.51 of 2002. Therefore, the documents which were sought to be marked for relief to the suit in O.S.No.51 of 2002, the petitioners continuously did not produce those documents which are connected to O.S.No.51 of 2002 and as such, the Court below has rightly permitted the respondents 1 and 2 to produce those documents. He further submitted that the Order 8 Rule 1(A) does not refer the pleadings upon the documents or relies upon any documents in his possession. Further, the pleadings contain details about the documents which are sought to be produced after filing t