C O M M O N O R D E R

(These matters are heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid Mode”.) These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decretal orders dated 22.11.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.13071, 13545 & 13546 of 2016 in O.S.No.4864 of 2014 on the file of the XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2.The issues involved in all these Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by this common order.

3.The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent / plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.4864 of 2014 against the petitioner for recovery of money. The petitioner filed written statement and is contesting the suit. Trial commenced. The partner of the plaintiff viz., Mithesh was examined as P.W.1. The counsel for the petitioner herein cross examined P.W.1. The evidence of respondent was closed and the suit was posted for evidence on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent, at that stage filed three applications viz., I.A.No.13071 of 2016 to condone the delay in filing the additional documents, I.A.No.13545 of 2016 to re-open the case for further evidence and I.A.No.13546 of 2016 to recall P.W.1 for further evidence and to mark the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff. According to respondent, the documents now sought to be marked were omitted to be filed along with plaint and the same were traced only now and the documents are vital to prove the case of the respondent and prayed for condonation of delay. In I.A.No.13546 of 2016, the respondent has sought to mark the document and recall P.W.1. The respondent filed two documents and hence, prayed to re-

open the case in I.A.No.13545 of 2016.

4.The petitioner filed common counter affidavit and contended that P.W.1 was examined and cross examined and he admitted that the respondent firm was not registered before the competent authority and the Xerox copy of the Registration Certificate of the firm marked are cooked up document and xerox copy of the document cannot be marked. The respondent has come out with these applications only to fill up the lacuna and the same cannot be permitted.

5.The learned Judge considering the averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit, allowed all the three I.As, holding that merits of the case cannot be decided at present. The Court is satisfied with the reasons given by the respondent and the respondent has right to mark the document and the same cannot be denied. The learned Judge permitted the respondent to mark the document subject to proof and relevancy of documents.

6.Against the said common order dated 22.11.2016 made in I.A.Nos.13071, 13545 & 13546 of 2016, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the learned Judge committed an irregularity in allowing the applications for condoning the delay in filing the additional documents, re-open the case and to recall P.W.1 for further evidence. The learned Judge failed to see that P.W.1 in cross examination admitted that firm was not registered and now the documents produced are cooked up documents for the purpose of the case. The learned Judge failed to see that P.W.1 was examined and cross examined on several dates and the respondent took several adjournments and subsequently, evidence on the side of the respondent was closed and the suit was posted for evidence of the petitioner. At that stage, the respondent filed three applications. The suit was filed in the year 2014 and if firm was registered, the respondent ought to have filed the Registration Certificate along with the plaint. The said three applications are filed only to fill up lacuna and the respondent cannot be permitted to mark the xerox copy of the documents, which are not relevant to the issue in the suit. The learned Judge failed to properly appreciate the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 and Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the followi