IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2445 OF 2010 DATED:25.06.2010 Between: Bagli Ram Reddy … Petitioner And M. Prabhakar Reddy … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2445 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri A. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission as the impugned order is not being interfered with and the order being passed herein causes no prejudice to the respondent. I.A. No.119 of 2006 was filed in O.S. No.57 of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Andole at Jogipet, for grant of temporary injunction and when such an injunction was granted by the trial Court, there was an appeal in C.M.A. No.2 of 2008 before the Senior Civil Judge, Medak, who dismissed the same. In Civil Revision Petition No.416 of 2009 against the said order, this Court remanded the matter for fresh disposal permitting the parties to produce additional evidence. After such remand, the respondent herein filed I.A. No.90 of 2010 before the appellate Court for receiving certified copies of the pahanies of the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 as additional evidence, which documents were unavailable earlier as the originals were not deposited with Tahsil office by the Village Secretary. This request was opposed by the revision petitioner contending that Sri Rameshwar Rao, who issued the documents in question, was no longer the Village Secretary of Elakurthy and it was under influence of the respondent herein that the Tahsildar attested the pahanies issued by an unconnected person. In the impugned order, the appellate Court referred to the rival contentions and observed that the Tahsildar need not be summoned for examination as requested by the revision petitioner which exercise can be undertaken during trial. The appellate Court also observed that no request was made to cross-examine the respondent herein under Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure though he was the person who gave the affidavit in support of the petition. Consequently, the appellate Court allowed the petition receiving the documents and rejecting the request to summon the Tahsildar for examination. The revision petitioner challenges the said order contending that the documents were not issued by the present Village Secretary though they were attested by the Tahsildar and such documents could not have been received in evidence. Insofar as the direction of this Court in C.R.P. No.416 of 2009 is concerned, the same has become final and the appellate Court had but no other option than to receive whatever further evidence is sought to be produced by the parties in the appeal. The affidavit filed in support of the petition gives the reason for non-filing of the documents earlier as they are unavailable with Tahsil office during the earlier period which reason is neither unconvincing nor shown to be false. While ex facie the documents are therefore to be received as additional evidence in tune with the directions of this Court, it is to be noted that mere receipt of the documents does not amount to either accepting their relevance or acting on them as proved. Relevancy and proof are matters to be considered at the stage of marking the documents. The objection against the documents being that they were issued by a person who was not the Village Secretary at the relevant time, the same can as well be established by the revision petitioner by obtaining copies of the relevant record or proceedings from the Tahsil office concerned, if necessary by taking recourse to the provisions of the Right to Information Act. The fact that Sri Rameshwar Rao was not the Village Secretary of the village in question at the relevant time can thus be established by the revision petitioner through appropriate permissible means and he cannot prevent the Court from receiving the documents nor can he summon the Tahsildar for examination as a witness in the interlocutory adjudication to be proceeded with and decided on prima facie considerations. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs with liberty to the revision petitioner to produce any evidence that he can produce concerning the placement of Sri Rameshwar Rao at the relevant point of time as Village Secretary. _____________________ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 25.06.2010 bnr