IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH (15th) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1295 of 2010 & CRP No.1316 of 2010 CRP No.1295 of 2010: Between: M/s Sunil enterprises, Hyderabad … Petitioner And: M. Rama Rao & 13 others … Respondents CRP No.1316 of 2010: Between: M/s Sunil enterprises, Hyderabad … Petitioner And: M. Rama Rao & 13 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1295 of 2010 & CRP No.1316 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: CRP No.1295 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 05.03.2010 in IA No.56 of 2010 in OS No.1559 of 2006 on the file of the X Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said petition filed under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of CPC for receiving certain documents by condoning the delay, was dismissed. CRP No.1316 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 05.03.2010 in IA No.57 of 2010 in the same suit, wherein the said petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for recall of DW.1 for the purpose of marking of the documents, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondents herein filed suit for declaration that the construction taken up by the defendants above the existing ground floor i.e., petition schedule property, is illegal and unauthorized and for permanent injunction and also mandatory injunction. The petitioner herein/first defendant and other defendants, filed written statement contesting the suit. After settlement of issues, the trial commenced. PW.1 was examined and plaintiff’s side evidence was closed. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined. While the matter was coming up for further evidence of the defendants, the petitioner/first defendant filed present applications for reopening and recall of his evidence and for receiving certain documents, namely.,1. Plan of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, dt.05.08.1971, 2. Copy of intimation of the Corporation dated 10.10.2009, 3. Copy of structural stability certificate dated 20.10.2009. 4. Copy of notice of rejection dated 18.12.2009 and 5. Copy of memorandum of appeal filed before the Appellate Court dated 18.01.2010. 4. The said petitions were opposed by the plaintiffs. By impugned orders, the trial Court dismissed the said applications, mainly on the ground of delay. It is to be noted that almost all the documents sought to be filed by the petitioner/first defendant are virtually official documents. There cannot be any tenable objection for receiving the said documents, subject to proof and relevancy. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the necessity for filing of the said documents arose subsequently and the absence of material documents would certainly hamper effective adjudication of the dispute. The trial is still under way. The documents are stated to be relevant for the purpose of substantiating the defence pleas. The plaintiffs would have an opportunity to cross-examine DW.1 and other witnesses with reference to the said documents. In the circumstances, with a view to afford an opportunity to the parties to place all material evidence on record, which would help the Court to adjudicate the dispute in a comprehensive manner and thereby render effective and substantial justice, it is considered that the petitioner-D.1 can be permitted to file documents mentioned in the petition and also recall DW.1 for the purpose of marking those documents. The impugned orders dismissing the applications are therefore set aside and consequently, both I.A.Nos.56 and 57 of 2010 in OS No.1559 of 2006 stand allowed. 5. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.02.2011 bss