HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.705 of 2008 ORDER: This revision petition is filed against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Chennur in I.A.No.126 of 2007 in O.S.No.16 of 2005 dated 04.02.2008. I.A.No.126 of 2007 was filed, under Section 151 CPC, by the petitioners-plaintiffs to reopen the suit for the purpose of further chief examination of PW.1 and to mark the documents in the suit. It is the case of the petitioners-plaintiffs that O.S.No.16 of 2005 was filed against the respondents-defendants for permanent injunction; during trial the first petitioner-first plaintiff was examined as PW.1; after filing the chief affidavit of PW.1, the suit was posted for his cross-examination without marking the documents filed on his behalf; the counsel for the petitioners- plaintiffs did not notice the non-marking of documents; the trial of the suit was completed; after arguments, the suit was posted for judgment; and the present I.A. was filed contending that, though they had already filed the documents before commencement of trial, by mistake/oversight they were not marked and, as such, the application for reopening the suit was filed for the purpose of marking the documents through PW.1. The Court below notes that, after filing the chief affidavits of PWs.1 and 2, the suit was posted for their cross-examination on 23.11.2006; PWs.1 and 2 were examined but no documents were marked on their behalf; a person who filed his affidavit, in lieu of chief examination, had to put the documents, which he wanted to mark, through the witness before cross-examination; if there was no objection by the other side, then he could have asked the Court to mark the said documents as exhibits, as required under Order XIII Rule 4 CPC; it was for the counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs to get the documents marked through the witness before cross- examination; the docket proceedings showed that no effort was made by the counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs or the petitioners themselves to get the documents marked; they kept silent throughout the entire trial; they had come up with the present petition when the matter was heard and posted for judgment; and, at that stage, the suit could not be reopened for the purpose of marking the documents. Sri J.C.Francis, Learned Counsel for the petitioners- plaintiffs, would submit that the documents, which the petitioners seek to mark, were all filed along with the suit; they were also marked in an interlocutory application seeking temporary injunction; and it was only by oversight that the counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs in the Court below had not marked the documents when PW.1 was examined. Learned Counsel would submit that the mistake committed by the counsel should not result in adverse consequences to the petitioners, and that this Court should direct the Court below to permit reexamination of PW.1 only for the purpose of marking the documents. Sri V.Ravikiran Rao, Learned Counsel for the respondents- defendants, would contend that, having kept quiet throughout the entire trial, and having let the matter be reserved for judgment, the petitioners-plaintiffs were not justified in now seeking to have the documents marked as that would virtually amount to reopening the trial. While the submission of Sri V.Ravikiran Rao, Learned Counsel for the respondents-defendants, cannot be said to be without merit, the fact remains that these documents, which the petitioners-plaintiffs seek to mark, were filed along with the plaint. The respondents-defendants filed their written statement based on the pleadings and the documents filed along with the plaint; issues were framed thereupon; and, in fact, these documents were marked in an interlocutory application filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction. The Court below has not held that non-marking of these documents was only to drag on proceedings before the Court below. It is evident that the documents, filed along with the plaint and marked as exhibits in the interlocutory application, were not marked by oversight or mistake of the counsel. No party should suffer for an error of his counsel. As failure to mark these documents could well result in the suit being decreed against the petitioners-plaintiffs, manifest injustice would ensue if the petitioners were denied an opportunity of having the documents marked through PW.1. I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to permit the petitioners-plaintiffs to further examine PW.1 and mark the documents, filed along with the plaint and in the I.A. filed for temporary injunction, through him. Needless to state that the respondents-defendants shall be entitled to cross-examine PW.1 on these documents, and the oral evidence led by him thereupon, and to adduce evidence in their defence on the documents in question. The petitioners-plaintiffs are permitted to recall PW.1 on a date specified by the Court below, and have the documents marked through him. In case the petitioners fail to avail the opportunity given by the Court below, and choose not to mark the documents on the dates specified, the Court below shall be entitled to proceed further, without marking these documents, and decide the suit in accordance with law. The petitioners herein shall, in view of the inconvenience caused to the respondents-defendants, pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards costs to the first respondent herein. The said amount shall be deposited to the credit of the suit in the Court below within a period of three weeks from today. On such deposit, the Court below shall permit the first respondent herein (first defendant in the suit) to withdraw the said amount. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:17-06-2010 Usd/asp