THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. Nos. 1674, 1800 and 1805 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These three civil revision petitions arise out of the common order dated 28.02.2011 passed in I.A. Nos. 3354, 3355 and 3356 of 2010 in O.S. No. 118 of 2005 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and therefore they are heard together and disposed by this common order. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein laid the suit O.S. No. 118 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the respondent herein, for damages to a tune of Rs. 20,00,000/, for making defamatory statements against him. The respondent filed his written statement denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the suit. Thereafter, issues were framed and the matter is now at the stage of trial. The petitioner-plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and the evidence on his side was completed. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself was examined as D.W.1. While the matter is coming up for further evidence of the defendant, the petitioner-plaintiff came up with the present three applications namely I.A. Nos. 3354, 3355 and 3356 of 2010, contending that P.W.3, who is working as a reporter with TV9 News Channel, has recorded the defamatory statement of the defendant and at the request of his counsel, the management of TV9 has issued a copy of the CD containing the said defamatory statement made by the defendant, which was recently furnished by P.W.3 to his counsel, and thus, he prayed the Court below to reopen the evidence on his behalf and to recall P.W.1 for giving further evidence in respect of the said C.D., by condoning the delay in producing the CD along with covering letter issued by TV9 management. The respondent-defendant resisted the petitions by filing counter, expressing doubt about the authenticity of the CD and the covering letter. The Court below, having considered the stand of the parties, held that the CD sought to be produced by the petitioner-plaintiff is not the original CD, that the letter enclosed thereto was not issued by TV9 management, which was said to have recorded the alleged defamatory statement of the defendant, and that the said letter not being on the letterhead of TV9 news channel, its validity is doubtful, that according to P.W.3 himself, he is not working with TV9 Channel as of now, and hence the validity of the CD copy and the letter sought to be produced in evidence by the petitioner-plaintiff is doubtful and hence they cannot be received in evidence. It further held that the plaintiff, neither in his evidence nor in the plaint, has stated that the alleged statement of the defendant was recorded by TV9 Channel, and that P.W.1 is not concerned with TV9 Channel and he is not the person who was said to have recorded the alleged statement of the defendant, and it is not his case even that he was present at the time the alleged statement of the defendant, was recorded by P.W.3. Having held so, the Court below observed that the plaintiff can summon an official of TV9 Channel and get the original CD produced and marked through him, but not by P.W.1., and accordingly dismissed the three applications, by the common order under revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant and perused the common order under revision. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for damages against the respondent-defendant, for making defamatory statements against him. According to him, the defamatory statements made by the respondent-defendant against him were broadcasted by the media including TV9, and that he came to know through the evidence of P.W.3, who happens to be the reporter of TV9, that the defamatory statements made by the defendant were recorded in the form of CD, which is available with TV9, and that at his request, the said CD was furnished to him along with covering letter by TV9, and so as to prove his case that the respondent made defamatory remarks against him, it is necessary that the said CD should be marked in evidence. No doubt, the respondent filed counter, expressing doubt about the authenticity of the CD and the letter produced by the petitioner, but they were factors which ought to be considered after full-fledged trial. Considering the nature of suit filed by the petitioner, which is filed against the respondent for damages, for the alleged defamatory remarks made against him by the respondent, and considering the nature of evidence, which the petitioner sought to produce, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below ought to have permitted the petitioner to produce the same, instead of rejecting the request of the petitioner, much less by recording findings touching the authenticity of the CD and the covering letter sought to be produced by the petitioner- plaintiff and further holding that the CD is not the original, and it is a copy of the original CD and as such it cannot be marked in evidence and likewise the letter enclosed to the CD was not issued by TV9 and it is not on the letterhead of TV9, and hence its validity is doubtful, even before the parties could lead their evidence. The questions whether the CD sought to be produced by the petitioner is the original or the re-production of the original, and whether it is genuine or otherwise, whether P.W.3 is the employee of TV9 or not, whether the covering letter enclosed to the said CD is issued by TV9 or not, are questions which have to be decided only after full-fledged trial and not at the threshold much les before the parties adducing evidence in that regard. The findings and observations made by the trial Court, indicating that the CD and letter sought to be produced by the petitioner are not genuine, are unwarranted and they virtually affect the main suit, which is not denied by the counsel appearing for the respondent. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below committed an error in recording findings on the authenticity of the CD and the covering letter sought to be produced by the petitioner, particularly, when the relief sought by the petitioner was to reopen the evidence and recall P.W.1., for adducing further evidence with regard to the CD and the covering letter. Even if the evidence of the petitioner side is re-opened and P.W.1 recalled and the CD and the letter sought to be produced by the petitioner are marked in evidence, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, because he would be provided opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner-plaintiff regarding the authenticity of the said CD and covering letter. Considering the circumstances and the nature of the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, I am of the opinion that for proper adjudication of the lis, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner- plaintiff to produce the said CD and covering letter in evidence, subject to admissibility, relevancy and proof. For the foregoing reasons, the common order under revision is set aside and the Court below is directed to permit the petitioner- plaintiff to produce the CD and covering letter in evidence, by reopening the evidence on his side and recalling P.W.1., for that purpose, however, subject to admissibility, relevancy and proof. The civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 17th June, 2011 IBL