'C.P.C.'). With the leave of the Court, plaintiff may file documents to condone delay and receive those documents whereas a petition is required to be filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. for re-opening evidence. Even otherwise, to examine the petitioner himself as witness again, a petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 is required to be filed. Filing one application, without filing three different applications as required under law, is contrary to Rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice. This Court had an occasion to deal with a similar situation in S.V.Krishna Reddy Vs. S.Mariam Bee and others[1] . In the facts of the above judgment, a suit for specific performance was filed; the plaintiff wanted to bring third parties on record by way of an application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C.; and sought for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 read with Rule 10 of Civil Rules of Practice but this Court held that a separate application for amendment is required to be filed since two reliefs cannot be granted in one application. The above principle is directly applicable to the present facts of the case. The trial Court, without considering various contentions raised before it and maintainability of the application in view of the bar under Rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice, passed a cryptic order. Thereby, the order under challenge is illegal; the same is, therefore, liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside.
