ORDER
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. Maryammal, the petitioner is the second defendant. After completion of trial, she filed four applications in I.A.Nos.283, 284, 285 and 286 of 2002 to reopen the case, to recall of the petitioner (D.W.1) again and to produce the Revenue records and the records pertaining to the electricity service connection which would be relevant to prove her possession in respect of the suit property. These applications were dismissed through a common order. Hence, these separate revisions.
2. The respondents filed a suit for partition and separate possession. According to the plaintiffs, Chennamalai, the father had two wives, namely Angayammal and Poovayee. Out of their wedlock, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 were born. The father Chennamalai executed a settlement deed in favour of their mother in respect of ‘A’ Schedule property. On the death of their mother, 1/5 share would devolve on the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3. In respect of ‘B’ Schedule property, the children would have 1/6 share. The first and third defendants supported the case of the plaintiffs.
3. According to the petitioner/second defendant, she is entitled to 1.508% in Survey No.213/1 and 213/3 described as item 2 of the ‘A’ Schedule property of the Will executed by her father and by way of purchase from Angammal, minor Lakshmi. Apart from the 1/5 share, she is entitled to in the above survey number as the heir of the mother. She also pleaded rights on the basis of the registered Will executed by her father in favour of the 4th defendant and the petitioner.
4.On both sides, the witnesses were examined. After completion of trial, the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed four applications to reopen the case and to mark some documents to prove her possession in respect of the suit properties, since during the course of cross-examination, the petitioner was called upon to produce the Chitta, Adangal and other Revenue records as proof of her enjoyment. These applications were rejected mainly on the ground that they were filed belatedly and the documents sought to be marked were brought subsequent to the suit. This order is challenged in these revisions.
5. Mr.Raghavachari, the learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously submit that the reasonings given in the impugned order are erroneous and perverse and the defendants must be given opportunity to file those documents to prove her possession, especially when the petitioner as D.W.1 was cross-examined by putting specific question challenging the possession of the petitioner.
6. Mr.A.K. Kumarasamy, the learned counsel for the Caveators/respondents would refute this contention by justifying the reasonings given by the trial Court in the impugned order.
7. Mr.Raghavachari would cite the decisions in DURAI PANDIAN, S.S.S. v. S.A. SAMUTHIRA PANDIAN (1998(1) L.W.778) and SAMUEL, J. v. S.MATHISA PANDIAN AND 2 OTHERS(1998(2)L.W.144) in order to substantiate his contention that the defendant must be given opportunity to produce the relevant documents by virtue of the powers under Rule 18 Rule 17 C.P.C.
8. On the other hand, Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy would cite 2000(1) L.W.487 (KANDASAMY v. PALANIAPPAN AND ANOTHER) in order to contend that when there are no sufficient reasons to reopen the case, the order rejecting the application for reopening the case is perfectly justified.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the counsel and also gone through the impugned order and other records.
10. The main point urged by the counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner as D.W.1 was questioned on her possession and Revenue records extensively, the petitioner was constrained to file the applications for reopening the case and for filing the documents to prove her possession in respect of the properties.
11. On going through the cross-examination, it is noticed that the suggestion has been put by the counsel for the plaintiff that the suit properties are joint family properties and some of the documents for developing the properties have not been filed. But, it is seen from the cross-examination that a suggestion has been put that the second defendant was asked to pay the electricity bill on behalf of the entire family, but the electricity bills were obtained in the name of the second defendant. The relevant portions are these:
@capy; rk;ge;jg;gl;l brhj;Jf;fs; vy;yhUf;Fk; 15/2/72y; Vw;gl;l brhj;Jf;fs; bghJthfj;jhd; cs;sJ vd;why; rhpay;y/ 4 ngh; btspa{hpy; ,Ug;gjhy; vd;dplk; cs;s{hpy; ,Ug;gjhy; gzk; fl;l vd; nghpy; fl;ondd; vd;why; rhpay;y/ tPl;ow;Fs;s kpd; ,izg;g[f;F gzk; fl;l bfhLj;jhh;fs; vd;Wk; ehd; vd; ngUf;F urPJ nghl;Lf;bfhz;nld; vd;why; rhpay;y/ bghJthf fl;ondd; vd;why; rhpay;y/ tPl;Lf;fhd gpshdpy; vy;yhhplKk; ifbaGj;J th’;fpg;nghndd;/ gp/3. 4. 13 vd; ngUf;;nf nghl;Ls;nsd; vd;why; rhpay;y/@
12. In view of the above suggestion, the case of the plaintiff is that these documents have been obtained in her name even though the properties were enjoyed jointly. Under those circumstances, it may not be necessary and relevant to mark those documents, especially when these documents have not been seriously challenged. The petitioner herself in para 6 of her affidavit filed before this Court stated as follows:
“I am advised to state that I have got all the revenue records and my possession has not beenseriously challenged. Those documents were not filed earlier.”
When such is the stand taken by the plaintiff, it is unnecessary to reopen the matter to mark the documents.
13. Furthermore, it is seen from the impugned order that the petitioner earlier filed applications for reopening the case for marking some documents in I.A.Nos.984, 985 and 986 and the same were allowed and accordingly, the witnesses were recalled and some documents were marked. Thus, opportunity earlier asked by the defendant was already given.
14. It is stated that in the cross-examination of the petitioner by the respondent, she was called upon to produce Chitta, Adangal and other Revenue records as proof of her enjoyment. But, there is no such reference in the cross-examination as correctly observed by the trial Court.
15. Though mere delay would not be a ground to reject the prayer, the impugned order can be sustained on the ground that the reasons given in the petition filed by the petitioner to reopen the case under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. cannot be construed to be the proper and sufficient reasons for reopening the case.
16. As mentioned above, several opportunities have been given to the petitioner/second defendant earlier. Therefore, yet another opportunity need not be given, in view of the fact that the documents sought to be marked would not be considered to be very essential documents in the light of the stand taken by the petitioner/second defendant.
17. The observation made by this Court in 2000(1) L.W.487 by Justice Subramani (as he then was) would apply in all fours to this case. Therefore, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.5187 of 2002 is also dismissed.