Judgment These three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a single suit between the same parties. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together. The petitioner is the defendant in OS.No.49 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, Guntur District. The said suit was filed by the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with her possession of the suit schedule property. The trial in the case was commenced in the year 2009. After both the parties have examined their respective witnesses i.e., four on each side, the suit was posted for arguments on 27-11-2009. Thereafter, the respondent has filed three IAs viz., IA.No.683 of 2010 for reopening the plaintiff’s side evidence, IA.No.684 of 2010 for recalling PW.1 and IA.No.685 of 2010 for marking six documents. The petitioner resisted the said applications. However, the lower Court, by separate Orders, allowed all the IAs. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petitions. At the hearing, Mr. M. Koteswara Rao, learned Counsel, representing Mr. N. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the lower Court has committed a serious jurisdictional error in allowing the IAs even though they were filed at a highly belated stage i.e. after closure of the trial. Mr. P. Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, sought to support the impugned orders of the lower Court. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. On the facts of the case, undoubtedly, there is a long delay in the respondent filing the applications referred to above. In her affidavit, filed in support of IA.No.685 of 2010, the respondent stated that the documents, which were proposed to be marked, were in the custody of her relatives and that recently, she has traced those documents. The explanation offered by the respondent for filing the IAs after completion of the evidence is indeed some what unconvincing. But, the request, for permitting to file documents, if rejected on the sole ground of delay may some times result in failure of justice. The documents, which the respondent is proposing to file, may help the Court to arrive at proper and correct conclusions in the suit. The respondent being the plaintiff will not normally stand to gain by merely dragging on the suit. The documents, which the respondent is proposing to file, may help the Court to arrive at proper and correct conclusions in the suit. The respondent being the plaintiff will not normally stand to gain by merely dragging on the suit. Further more, the lower Court, having already exercised its discretion in favour of the respondent, it is neither proper nor appropriate for this Court to interfere therewith in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, having regard to the fact that the respondent was not diligent in prosecuting her case, the lower Court ought to have compensated the petitioner by awarding reasonable costs. Therefore, while declining to interfere with the impugned orders of the lower Court, the respondent is directed to pay costs of Rs.2,500/-in each of the three IAs to the petitioner. Such payment shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondent fails to pay costs, the orders of the lower Court under revision will stand confirmed. Conversely, on proof of payment of costs, the lower Court shall proceed further with the trial of the suit and dispose of the same within three months from the date of reopening of the evidence. The Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with costs. As a sequel, interim order, dated 16-09-2011, is vacated and CRPMP.No.4454 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous.