Judgment : This appeal suit is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 4.12.1984 rendered in O.S.No.32 of 1984 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee thereby dismissing the suit filed by the appellants herein for partition, return of certain movables and for costs. 2. Today, when the above appeal was taken up for consideration prior to going into the merit of the appeal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the lower Court passed the judgment on 4.12.1984 without considering an application filed by the plaintiff before the lower Court on 3.12.1984 under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to reopen the above Code of Civil Procedure praying to reopen the above case for the purpose of marking the documents viz., the mortgage deed of the year 1921 and others, in the interest of justice. The learned counsel for the appellants would fairly submit that the appellants greatly relied on the said document in proof of their claim that some of the suit properties were ancestral in nature and since that document was not able to be procured during trial and in spite of their due diligence and care exercised it was only able to be produced before the Court on 3.12.1984 and therefore the plaintiffs were necessitated to file the application to reopen the suit for further evidence to be let in and for due consideration of the said document filed along with the application. 3. The grievance of the appellants is that the learned Judge of the lower Court without even considering the application, the next day, after delivery of the judgment as scheduled on 4.12.1984, has artificially taken up the application filed by the appellants on 3.12.1984 and had simply returned the same with remarks “Judgment pronounced today. Hence, petition returned”, which is not the manner in which such application filed for consideration of a vital evidence placed, should be dealt with by the Court. 4. For the above submissions made on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents also would fairly consider and did not show still opposition since it is the question of further opportunity. 4. For the above submissions made on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents also would fairly consider and did not show still opposition since it is the question of further opportunity. But, the learned counsel would feel that it was only at the discretion of the lower Court and it could either allow or reject such applications and the lower Court has chosen to return the same since the application had been filed at the last moment when almost the judgment would have been completed by the Court. 5. In the above circumstances, the only point for consideration is, whether the lower Court is right in delivering the judgment without considering the application filed by the appellants on 3.12.1984? 6. In consideration of all the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, this Court is of the view that when a party is craving to reopen the case on a vital aspect for the limited purpose of letting in additional evidence, either oral or documentary, through the discretion is conferred on the lower Court to make use of its discretion in the manner that it thinks fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, such discretion could be exercised only in consideration of the application and with due opportunity for parties to be heard and at the time of disposal of the application on merits for reasons set forth in writing it could have exercised its discretion whether the application is to be allowed or rejected. 7. Moreover, the discretion conferred on the Courts since being the judicial discretion known to law, the lower Court should have exercised its discretion in the manner warranted by law. Instead, the lower Court which had entertained the application on 3.12.1984 itself had kept it idle for the whole day and the next day on 4.12.1984 having chosen to pronounce the judgment had casually taken up the application filed by the appellants the previous day and had simply returned the same on ground that it had already delivered the judgment, as though till such time of delivering the judgment, the Court was not aware of the pending application and the urgency involved in the same so far as it is concerned with the rights of the petitioners therein. It is not fair on the part of the lower Court to have adopted such course for returning the application after delivering the judgment, as a result of which the appellants have reason to get aggrieved with their application filed a day before delivery of the judgment had not at all been considered in the manner required by law and only after disposing the said application on merit with due opportunity for both sides to be heard, the lower Court could have chosen to deliver the judgment. Without adopting such procedures established by law, keeping the said petition idle for the whole day and returning the same after delivery of the judgment is not at all proper on the part of the lower Court nor is it the manner in which it has to be dealt with and therefore it has become necessary on the part of this Court to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court without considering the application filed on the part of the appellants herein. The point is answered accordingly. 8. For all the above discussions held, it had only become necessary to remand the above matter to the lower Court with directions to consider the application filed on the part of the appellants herein before the lower Court on 3.12.1984 and pass necessary orders on the application with due opportunity for both parties to be heard and then to decide the suit on such additional materials placed on record with further opportunity for parties to be heard, in case the lower Court decides to allow the said application in its own consideration on merits. In result, • (i) the above appeal suit is allowed; • (ii) the judgment and decree dated 4.12.1984 rendered in O.S.No.32 of 1984 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee since being rendered without consideration of the application filed on the part of the appellants to reopen the suit, become liable to be set aside and they are set aside accordingly; • (iii) the subject is remanded to the trial Court for proper consideration of the application filed by the appellants on 3.12.1984 for reopening the case, with due opportunity for parties to be heard and to decide the same and in the event the application is allowed on merit, to give fourth opportunity for parties to be heard and decide the above matter on merits in consideration of all the material, evidence placed on record; • (iv) since the subject matter is pending from the year 1984, a further direction is also issued herewith to the lower Court to complete all the exercises aforementioned within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, taking up the same out of turn and posting the same in the priority list and to deliver the judgment on merits and in accordance with law; and • (v) all parties are hereby directed to appear before the lower Court on 6.6.2001. 9. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.