COMMON ORDER:

These civil revision petitions are filed to set aside the order dated 25.01.2018 in I.A.Nos.562, 563 and 564 of 2017 in O.A.No.602 of 2012 respectively on the file of Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”).

2. The petitioner is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as they were arrayed in the O.A.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

4. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the applicants filed the main O.A. to declare the respondent as an encroacher of the O.A. schedule property and to evict the respondent from the schedule property and handover vacant physical possession to the 2nd applicant temple. While so, when the main case was coming up for arguments, the applicants filed applications in I.A.Nos.562, 563 and 564 of 2017 to reopen their evidence and to receive the enlisted documents filed along with the petition by condoning the delay by recalling PW1. The respondent filed counter-affidavit by resisting the said applications on the ground that the said applications are filed when the main case was posted for arguments. On a consideration of the material on record, the Tribunal allowed the said three applications vide order dated 25.01.2018. Challenging the said order, the present revisions are filed.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the Tribunal has committed error in allowing the applications when the matter is coming up for arguments, without giving any valid reasons. He also submits that the present applications are filed only to protract the proceedings.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents- applicants, while supporting the impugned order, submits that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the applications and the impugned order needs no interference. He further submits that the Tribunal has rightly given an opportunity to produce further documents, as the revision petitioners are the encroachers and to prove the case, the documents are very much essential and as such, prayed to dismiss the civil revision petitions.

7. For the sake of reference, the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 and Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) are reproduced herein below:

Order VII – Rule 14 - Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies —

(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

Order XVIII Rule 17 - Court may recall and examine witness—

The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit”

8. In my view, the main purpose of the said rule is to enable the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined.

9. In the affidavit