ORDER
1. This civil revision petition is filed questioning the order in IA No.357 of 1998 in OS No. 202 of 1992.
2. The said IA, was filed seeking to reopen the suit to enable the petitioner-plaintiff to examine two more witnesses on his behalf. The said prayer was granted by the lower Court.
3. The reason for filing the application to reopen the matter as disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the petition shows that the plaintiff could not secure the presence of the witnesses as they were not available and since the said witnesses were available end were ready to depose on his behalf and their examination is essential and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants.
4. As could be seen from the record, the matter is of the year 1992; trial was completed and the same was being adjourned from time to time for arguments. At that stage, the said IA, was filed seeking to reopen the matter. Except stating that the witnesses were not available at the time of trial, no other reason was assigned for not examing them earlier.
5. The petitioner-defendant contends that permitting the plaintiff to examine two more witnesses at this stage will cause prejudice and no reason whatsoever for reopening the matter was assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, and therefore, the lower Court is not justified in allowing the application.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this Court in Meela Anthaiah v. Meela Vajramma, 1994 (1) An. WR 9 (NRC), wherein it was held that there are absolutely no reasons given by the lower Court in allowing the petition. Further, it was held that the lower Court in a routine and mechanical manner permitted to reopen the matter, and eventually the order under revision was set aside.
7. On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent relies on a judgment of this Court in R. Manjunadhan Sarma v. Union of India, 1982 ALT 83 (NRC), wherein it was held that the High Court has jurisdiction and power to reopen the case, and further held that additional evidence can be allowed even at the appellate stage on the ground that no prejudice could be caused to the petitioner therein.
8. In my view these two decisions are in a different set of circumstances and evidently there is no conflict at all between these two decisions.
9. In the present case, it has to be seen that the suit was being adjourned for arguments, and there are absolutely no reasons assigned for reopening the suit, except stating that the witnesses were not available at the time of trial. As the suit was being adjourned for advancing arguments, at that stage allowing such a prayer and reopening the matter permitting the plaintiff to examine some more witnesses would in my view certainly cause prejudice to the other side. In fact, it is not theprejudice that is likely to be caused to the otherside alone that has to be looked into. The real test should be that whether the party making such an application is trying to get any undue advantage by such reopening of the matter and such an applicant shall explain what prejudice he is going to suffer, if that petition is not allowed.
10. In the instant case, as disclosed from the averments of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, there was no effort made by the plaintiff to show any valid reason for reopening the matter. The lower Court in my opinion did not go into the aspect as to what amount of advantage the petitioner would get and whether that advantage would be undue advantage or not, nor the petitioner in IA, did not explain the prejudice that is likely to be caused to him. The lower Court ought not to have automatically allowed the said application, which would only eventually delay the proceeding, let alone causing any prejudice to the other side.
11. Therefore, for the above reasons, I am of the view that the lower Court has erred in allowing the petition and the same is accordingly set aside.
12. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.