Permitting further evidence can be justified under distinct applications even if earlier requests were denied, ensuring fair trial rights.

COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P.No.695 of 2021 is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order, dated 01.03.2021 passed in I.A.No.748 of 2019 in O.S.No.115 of 2013 by the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet at Medak District, wherein and whereunder the application filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. to accord permission to defendant No.6 to adduce further evidence was allowed.

2. C.R.P.No.697 of 2021 is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order, dated 01.03.2021 passed in I.A.No.747 of 2019 in O.S.No.115 of 2013 by the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet at Medak District, wherein and whereunder the application filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. to re-open the suit to enable defendant No.6 to adduce further evidence was allowed.

3. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions is inter-connected the same are being disposed of by this common order.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit against the defendants seeking partition of the suit schedule property. It is stated that the Managing Director of defendant No.6-company filed chief affidavit as D.W.2 and when he failed to appear before the Court for further examination, the learned trial Court eschewed the affidavit of D.W.2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the defendants. It is further stated that a similar application was filed earlier vide I.A. No. 295 of 2019 seeking to recall D.W.2 for further cross-examination and the same was dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that no application has been filed to set aside the order eschewing the chief affidavit of D.W.2. Therefore, the relief sought for recalling of D.W.2 was held to be not maintainable. Subsequently, defendant No.6 filed the present applications contending that D.W.2 intended to lead further evidence on behalf of the defendants.

6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties, the learned trial Court allowed the said applications to re-open the suit and permitting the defendants to adduce further evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs.300/-. However, the trial Court imposed a condition that D.W.2 must lead evidence without any further delay.

7. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present revisions are filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs contending that the principles of res judicata would apply in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal and others v. Smt. Deorjin Debi and another , [AIR 1960 SC 941] and Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and another 2. It further contended that the trial Court ought to have seen that earlier petitions were dismissed after the amendments were carried out and the latest amendment was carried out in the month of February, 2019 and the said petitions were dismissed on 10.07.2019 and no appeal or revision was preferred by defendant No.6. It is further contended that the orders of the trial Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also contrary to the facts of the case and therefore, prayed this Court to allow the revision petitions.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents, now the

2 (2005) 1 SCC 787

point that arise for consideration before this Court is “whether the trial Court has rightly allowed the application or committed any error in allowing the application, if so to what relief?”

9. POINT NO.1:

Heard the contentions and rival contentions of both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemen