Judgment : 1. These civil revision petitions have been filed to set aside the fair and decretal orders, dated 23.04.2014, passed in I.A.Nos.26 and 27 of 2014 in O.S.No.193 of 2010 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Eraniel. 2. Since common issues are involved in these two civil revision petitions, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners are the defendants, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.193 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Eraniel. 4. The respondent filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners filed written statement on 29.07.2011 and contested the suit. After framing the issues, the trial of the suit was commenced and P.W.1 was examined in-chief. The petitioners took number of adjournments for cross examining P.W.1. Since the petitioners took number of adjournments, the evidence of P.W.1 was closed. P.W.2 was examined on behalf of the respondent in-chief. At that stage, the petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.107 of 2013, for recalling the evidence of P.W.1, for cross-examination. The application in I.A.No.107 of 2013 was allowed. The petitioners wilfully neglected that opportunity and did not cross-examine P.W.1. Therefore, the evidence was closed and then, P.W.2 was examined. The petitioners subsequently, filed two applications in I.A.Nos.26 and 27 of 2014, for reopening the respondent's evidence for the purpose of cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and recalling the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 for the purpose of cross-examination. According to the petitioners, the respondent filed 83 documents at the time of examination of P.W.1. Therefore, the petitioners applied for certified copies of the documents filed by the respondent. They did not get the certified copies, when the suit was posted for cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, the petitioners could not cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2. The certified copies were obtained only on 04.10.2013. After perusing 83 documents, the petitioners filed I.A.Nos.26 and 27 of 2014, for reopening and recalling the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, for cross-examination. 5. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations. According to the respondent, the petitioners are dragging on the proceedings and after commencement of trial, they have taken number of adjournments for cross-examination of P.W.1, but they did not cross-examine them. They also filed T.O.P.No.221 of 2011, for transferring the case to the First Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. 5. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations. According to the respondent, the petitioners are dragging on the proceedings and after commencement of trial, they have taken number of adjournments for cross-examination of P.W.1, but they did not cross-examine them. They also filed T.O.P.No.221 of 2011, for transferring the case to the First Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. Subsequently, they withdrew the said application after two years. The attitude of the petitioners clearly reveal that they are not interested in conducting the case, because of the delay, activities in the church are affected and worshippers are put to irreparable loss and hardship. 6. The learned Judge considering the materials on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent, dismissed the applications in I.A.Nos.26 and 27 of 2014, on 23.04.2014. Against the said order, both the civil revision petitions are filed. 7. Heard Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent reiterated the averments made in the affidavit as well as in the counter affidavit. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is not the intention of the petitioners to drag on the proceedings. They could not cross-examine the witnesses, as the respondent has filed and marked 83 documents at the time of cross-examination of witnesses. Only after obtaining certified copies of the documents, the petitioners are now in a position to cross-examine the witnesses. According to the petitioners, the learned Judge erred in dismissing the applications without appreciating the facts and law. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Judgment reported in 2011 (11) SCC 275 [K.K.Velusamy v. N.Palanisamy], wherein in paragraph No.15, it has been held as follows:- "15. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that once arguments are commenced, there could be no reopening of evidence or recalling of any witness. This contention is raised by extending the convention that once arguments are concluded and the case is reserved for judgment, the court will not entertain any interlocutory application for any kind of relief. The need for the court to act in a manner to achieve the ends of justice (subject to the need to comply with the law) does not end when arguments are heard and Judgment is reserved. The need for the court to act in a manner to achieve the ends of justice (subject to the need to comply with the law) does not end when arguments are heard and Judgment is reserved. If there is abuse of the process of the court, or if interests of justice require the court to do something or take note of something, the discretion to do those things does not disappear merely because the arguments are heard, either fully or partly. The convention that no application should be entertained once the trial or hearing is concluded and the case is reserved for judgment is a sound rule, but not a straitjacket formula. There can always be exceptions in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court, subject to the limitation recognised with reference to exercise of power under Section 151 of the Code. Be that as it may. In this case, the applications were made before the conclusion of the arguments." 10. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit and vehemently argued that the petitioners are trying to drag on the proceedings by filing application after application and taking number of adjournments on flimsy grounds. In the interest of justice, the civil revision petitions may be dismissed. 11. I have perused all the materials on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent. 12. It is an admitted fact that 83 documents were marked during chief-examination of P.W.1. This necessitated the petitioners to apply for certified copies of the said documents and prepare themselves for cross-examination of witnesses produced by the respondent. Recalling of a witness after cross-examination is the discretion of the Court. The Court must exercise the said discretion judicially. If in the interest of justice, it is necessary to recall any evidence for deciding the issue in a proper manner, the Courts can order recalling a witness. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2011 (11) SCC 275 referred to above, has held that the Courts have discretion to permit for re-opening the evidence and/or recalling of witnesses for further examination/cross-examination after evidence led by parties is concluded and arguments have commenced or even when arguments have concluded and case has been reserved for Judgment. 13. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2011 (11) SCC 275 referred to above, has held that the Courts have discretion to permit for re-opening the evidence and/or recalling of witnesses for further examination/cross-examination after evidence led by parties is concluded and arguments have commenced or even when arguments have concluded and case has been reserved for Judgment. 13. The consideration of Court is whether ends of justice so warrants and to prevent abuse of process of Court, the Courts can re-open the witness for chief-examination or for cross-examination. The learned Judge failed to consider whether the reasons given by the petitioners are valid and sufficient to re-open and re-call the witnesses. Whether the cross-examination of witnesses is necessary to decide the issue in the suit on merits. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge is set aside and both the applications are allowed. Since the suit is of the year 2010, the learned Additional District Munsif, Eraniel, is directed to hear the matter on merits and conduct the trial on day-to-day basis as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. The civil revision petitions are allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.