case. 2. As many as 4 witnesses were examined as Pws 1 to 4 on the side of the plaintiff and they were fully cross-examined by the petitioner in the revision petitions/defendant. Again on an application filed by the revision petitioner herein/defendant in I.A.No.887 of 2015, the above said witnesses, namely Pws 1 to 4 were recalled and cross-examined further. Thereafter, the matter stood listed for adducing evidence on the side of the revision petitioner herein/defendant. Such recalling of Pws 1 to 4 was made and they were fully cross-examined on 16.01.2016. After completion of the cross-examination on 16.01.2016, the evidence on the side of the plaintiff was closed and the matter stood listed for adducing evidence on the side of the defendant, namely the revision petitioner herein. Meanwhile, on 20.01.2016, the revision petitioner herein/defendant filed I.A.No.104 of 2016 for re-opening the case for further evidence of the plaintiff and I.A.No.105 of 2016 for recalling Pws 1 to 4 for further examination. The applications were resisted on the ground that the defendant was trying to prolong the case and delay the decision in the suit. Accepting the said objection and sustaining the same, the learned trial Judge dismissed both the applications by a common order dated 15.03.2016. It is as against the decretal orders passed in the interlocutory applications, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner herein/defendant.
