order passed thereon, the duplicate of the agreement dated 5.9.2003 was produced by the third defendant in court on 18.3.2013. The first defendant was examined on 19.3.2013. The plaintiffs had sought production of the duplicate of the agreement for the purpose of substantiating their contention that a plan did not form part of the agreement dated 5.9.2003. Without the duplicate of the agreement being formally proved and marked, no reliance can be placed on it and therefore, even without the defendants applying for reopening the evidence the court below could have on its own reopened the evidence for the purpose of marking the said document in evidence. That apart, the third defendant had in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.827 of 2013 averred that though the document was produced on 18.3.2003, it was omitted to be marked at the time of trial and therefore, the evidence may be reopened for the purpose of marking the document in evidence. As stated earlier, the first defendant was examined only on 19.3.2013, the day after the document was produced. Since the document was produced before the witness on the side of the defendants was examined, it cannot be said that it is a case of the evidence being reopened for the purpose of marking a document which was produced after the defence witnesses were examined. In such circumstances, as the evidence is sought to be reopened to mark a
