COMMON ORDER

Since, all these Civil Revision Petitions are inter-

connected, they are being heard and disposed of together by this common order.

2. The Civil Revision Petition vide CRP.No.429 of 2025 is filed aggrieved by the order, dt.06.01.2025 in IA.No.103 of 2024 in O.S.No.54 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nakrekal, whereby the said application filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) to re-open the matter for the purpose of receiving documents on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff and to recall PW1 for the purpose of marking the said documents, was dismissed.

3. The Civil Revision Petition vide CRP.No.443 of 2025 is filed aggrieved by the order, dt.06.01.2025 in IA.No.102 of 2024 in O.S.No.54 of 2024 on the file of the Court below, whereby the said application filed under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code to receive the documents filed along with the said application for the purpose of marking, was dismissed.

4. CRP.No.521 of 2025 is filed aggrieved by the order, dt.06.01.2025 in IA.No.104 of 2024 in O.S.No.54 of 2024 on the file of the Court below, whereby the said application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code seeking to recall PW1 for the purpose of marking the documents, was dismissed.

5. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the above suit vide OS.No.54/2024 (old O.S.No.751 of 2014) filed for declaration of title and for grant of perpetual injunction.

6. While the aforesaid suit is coming up for cross- examination of DW-2, the petitioner herein had filed the underlying applications seeking to reopen the matter, for the purpose of receiving additional documents and to mark the same by recalling PW1.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in all the revision petitions contends that the petitioner intended to file additional documents as the said documents are very much required to prove his case as pleaded by him in the plaint, and for the said purpose his evidence as PW1 is required to be re-opened, and mark the said documents by recalling him/PW1.

8. It is further contended that the Court below without considering the reasons assigned for filing the underlying interlocutory applications had dismissed the aforesaid applications, and thus, seeks for allowing these revision petitions by setting aside the impugned orders of the Court below passed in the underlying interlocutory applications.

9. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

10. At the outset, in order to examine, as to whether the impugned orders passed by the Court below declining to re- open the evidence of the plaintiff, receive the additional documents sought to be marked and recall PW1 to mark the said documents, suffers from any infirmity, it is necessary to note the following facts.

11. The petitioner herein had instituted the subject suit in the year 2014; that in the said suit he had filed chief examination affidavit on 29.11.2018 and was cross-examined on behalf of the respondents/defendants on 06.11.2019; that thereafter, the respondents/defendants’ evidence was also closed on

16.12.2021, and presently, the suit is posted for arguments.

12. On closure of evidence on the side of respondents/defendants in the suit, the petitioner had filed the underlying interlocutory applications seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

13. In the said interlocutory applications, the respondents had filed their counter opposing the same by contending that the underlying applications are filed belatedly at the stage of arguments in the suit, only to cause delay in disposal of the suit; that no cogent reasons are given as to why the additional documents sought to be marked could not be filed by the petitioner/plaintiff at the time of giving evidence, when they are in his custody all these days; and thus, the said documents are fabricated and are not relevant to the case.

14. The Court below by taking note of the arguments advanced on both sides had noted that the petitioner herein did not assign any cogent reasons as to