Judgment :- The Revision Petitioner in C.R.P. Nos. 2110 and 2111 of 1999 is the second defendant and the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2789 of 1999 is the first defendant in the suit. 2. After trial was over, an application was filed by the defendants separately to reopen the case. It is alleged in their affidavit that some of the documents were mixed up with other files and they wanted to reopen the case. The lower Court allowed it and both the defendants were allowed to adduce evidence. Evidence was also let in thereafter. Again evidence was closed and the case was posted for arguments. Again another application was filed for the same relief to reopen the case on the ground that certain documents were traced only later on and they wanted to produce them. It was stated in the affidavit that documents were mixed up with certain other files and the same could be traced out and filed along with the application. When they filed an affidavit, the same was seriously opposed by the plaintiff and by the impugned order, the lower Court dismissed the same. Those orders are challenged in these revisions. 3. The affidavit makes it clear that the lower Court has given reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence. Even after the entire evidence was over, at the instance of the revision petitioners they were permitted to adduce evidence both oral and documentary. Then the case was posted for arguments. It was the third time again, another application was filed to reopen the case. The lower Court had been very lenient in reopening the case as and when the same were sought for by the petitioners. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were not given any opportunity to adduce evidence. The case was also reopened at their instance. In the affidavit, except stating that the documents were mixed up with some other files, no sufficient reasons were given to reopen the case under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It cannot be a sufficient cause for reopening the case. The lower Court was not satisfied with the reasons given by the applicant. The intention of the petitioners is only to prolong the litigation. I do not find any ground to interfere. 4. It cannot be a sufficient cause for reopening the case. The lower Court was not satisfied with the reasons given by the applicant. The intention of the petitioners is only to prolong the litigation. I do not find any ground to interfere. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment reported in T.M. Natarajan v. Subbaraya Mudaliar and another (1989-1-M.L.J. 507 = 1989-1 -L.W. 298), In that case, the question that arose for consideration was whether the revision is maintainable against the order dismissing the application under Order 18 Rule 20 C.P.C.I do not doubt the maintainability of the revisions. The same is maintainable provided it is shown that the lower Court has not exercised the discretion properly. If the lower Court had exercised its discretion giving valid reasons, it is not liable to be revised under Section 115 of the C.P.C. In this case the Lower Court has given valid reasons for not reopening the case. The Civil Revision petitions are therefore, dismissed. Consequently connected C.M.Ps. are closed.