IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4254 and 4263 of 2010 BETWEEN Niranjan Joshi ... PETITIONER AND Mahaveer Chand Jain ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. RAJAPUROHIT Counsel for the Respondent: MR. DAMODAR MUNDRA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are at the instance of the defendant, who had filed three applications before the Court below viz. (1) I.A.No.260 of 2010 to receive two documents viz. certified copy of FIR.No.19 of 2010 and the press report concerning the FIR; (2) I.A.No.261 of 2010 was filed for reopening of the suit for the purpose of marking of these documents and (3) I.A.No.262 of 2010 was filed to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination. All the applications were opposed by the respondent/plaintiff on the ground that neither the FIR nor the press report concerning that has any evidentiary value nor it has any relevance with reference to the suit between the parties. The Court below, however, allowed I.A.No.260 of 2010 and received the said documents. The other two applications i.e. I.A.No.261 and 262 of 2010 were rejected by separate orders dated 12.07.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant has filed the present revision petitions. 2. Heard both the learned counsel appearing on either side. 3. While the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents having been received by the order of the Court in I.A.No.260 of 2010, no purpose would be served, if the petitioner is not allowed to mark the said documents, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the suit is at the stage of arguments and the petitioner has filed the present documents only to delay the disposal of the suit; even otherwise, these documents have no probative value and would not any way be relevant for the issue involved in the suit. 4. After hearing both the learned counsel, I am of the view that the documents having been received by the order of the Court below in I.A.No.260 of 2010 no purpose would be served by merely receiving the documents without they being marked. A copy of the FIR and press report concerning the same, being a matter of record, subject to proof and relevancy of its contents, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the said documents are marked in evidence. It is well-settled that mere marking of document would not amount to affirmation of its proof or relevancy and those aspects can be gone into when the Court is dealing with the suit at the time of final disposal. Learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, fairly submits that if it is only a question of marking, the document can be marked by consent and in view of the said fair submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, consent is herby recorded and the said two documents, as received by the Court below by orders in I.A.No.260 of 2010, shall be marked appropriately on behalf of the petitioner in view of the consent recorded herein. So far as recalling P.W.1 is concerned, the same is clearly unnecessary and is highly belated and was rightly not granted by the Court below. The civil revision petitions are, therefore, disposed of to the extent of allowing the applications I.A.Nos.261 and 262 of 2010 to the extent of marking the aforesaid two documents by consent and the request of the petitioner to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination stands rejected. The Court below shall now proceed with the suit and dispose of the same expeditiously and in any case, before the end of April 2011. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 17, 2011 Note: Office to communicate the order to the Court below within one week. (B/o) DSK