HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1475 of 2010 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1874 and 1875 of 2010 DATE:15.04.2010 Between: K. Maruthi Vara Prasad … Petitioner/D.4 and T. Sai Lakshman and three others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1475 of 2010 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1874 and 1875 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These three revisions arise out of a common order, dated 02.03.2010, passed by the Court of the 5th Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, in various applications filed in O.S.No.24 of 2008. 2. The 1st respondent filed the suit claiming compensation against the petitioner. In brief, the cause of action for filing the suit is that the 1st respondent is studying in a school, where the petitioner is working as a teacher, and he is said to have lost his sight, on account of an injury caused by the petitioner with a stick in the class room. The trial of the suit commenced and the suit is at the stage of arguments. 3. The father of the 1st respondent approached the District Educational Officer, Kadapa District, 3rd defendant in the suit, with an application, under the Right to Information Act, and secured certain documents pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, in relation to the same incident. Since the evidence was closed by the time the documents are obtained, he filed three applications namely I.A.Nos.121, 122 and 123 of 2010, with a prayer to reopen the evidence, receive the documents, and to recall P.W.1 to mark them. The petitioner opposed the applications by raising several grounds. Through a common order, dated 02.03.2010, the learned District Judge, allowed the applications. Hence these three revisions. 4. Sri J. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the applications filed by the 1st respondent were untenable in law. He contends that in case the 1st respondent wanted to get any documents from the persons who are parties to the suit, the only alternative is to file an application under Order 11 C.P.C. He submits that defendant No.3 in the suit remained exparte and the documents secured from him, otherwise than through an application under Order 11 C.P.C., cannot be received. He further submits that the applications are filed, only as an attempt to cover the lacunae in the evidence that has already been recorded. 5. The evidence, on behalf of both the parties, was adduced in the suit, and at the stage of arguments, the three applications referred to above were filed. Had the attempt of the 1st respondent been to introduce something, which was missing in the earlier evidence, by taking the recourse to the material, which was there in his possession, things would have been different altogether. The 1st respondent came to know that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner herein, in relation to the very incident. As soon as he knew about the said proceedings, he filed an application under the Right to Information Act and copies of the proceedings were made available to him. As a matter of fact, this is one of the fittest cases for reopening and receiving the evidence. The evidence, which is sought to be adduced, has a direct bearing on the issue involved. Strictly speaking, such evidence deserves to be admitted, even at the appellate stage, as additional evidence. The trial court has discussed the judgments cited on behalf of the parties and has arrived at a correct and proper conclusion. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 15th April, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1475 of 2010 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1874 and 1875 of 2010 (Dismissed) 15th April, 2010 CBS