A perusal of the orders under revision would disclose that in the year 2008 itself, the evidence of the parties was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. At that point of time, the petitioners filed applications in I.A. Nos. 198 of 2008 and 300 of 2008 praying the Court to re-open the suit, recall D.W.1 for further cross-examination and to receive the documents. The said applications were allowed on 10.11.2008. Thereafter, the suit was re-opened and D.W.1, who was recalled, was cross-examined at length and documents were also marked. Thereafter, while the matter is posted for arguments, the petitioners again filed interlocutory applications praying the Court to recall P.W.1 for further evidence and to receive documents, and the said applications were also allowed. Thereafter, while the suit was reserved for judgment, after closure of evidence and arguments were heard, the petitioners again filed the present applications. The petitioners, in the affidavits filed in support of the present applications, except stating that D.W.1 admitted that he was in possession of the earlier sale deeds relating to Exs.B5 and B6, but he did not produce them, and that they obtained the same with great difficulty, and that they are essential for just decision, and as such, it is necessary that the suit should be re-opened and D.W.1 recalled for further crossexamination and the documents received in evidence, have not explained why they did not produce the documents at an earlier point of time, even though the evidence of the parties was closed and subsequently similar applications filed by them, were allowed. In the
