Section 151 CPC to reopen the evidence on the plaintiffs’ side. The lower Court has thus failed to properly understand the scope of I.A.No.50 of 2014, as a result of which it has made an erroneous observation that the petitioners seek to prove the proposed surveyor’s plan through PW-1. The prayer in I.A.No.50/2014 is somewhat comprehensive, in that, it sought reopening of the plaintiffs’ evidence, recalling of PW-1 and permission to examine the licensed surveyor. Therefore, the main reason on which the lower Court has dismissed the applications suffers from serious factual error. As regards the reason given by the lower Court that the applications are belated, in rendering this finding the lower Court has evidently taken into consideration the date on which the suit was filed. While considering whether an application filed by a party is belated or not, the date of suit alone is not the criterion. The Court must examine whether the applicant could have come out with the same application at an earlier point of time or not. The petitioners have clearly explained that the cause for them to adduce additional evidence has arisen consequent upon the respondents marking Ex.B-1 on 23-12-2013. Therefore, on the facts of this case, the date of filing of the suit has no relevance. But for marking of Ex.B-1 by the respondents/defendants, the occasion for the petitioners to get a plan prepared by the surveyor and file the same would not have arisen at all. The lower Court has lost sight of this relevant aspect and
