HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.5386 OF 2009 DATE:27-11-2009 BETWEEN: Chikkam Suryanarayana & Another. …Petitioners AND Tummala Venkateswara Rao & Others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.5386 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioners-plaintiffs filed this Revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the correctness of the order, dated 22.10.2009 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry dismissing their application in I.A.No.712 of 2009 in O.S.No.60 of 2004 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking the list of documents. The second petitioner is the wife of first petitioner. They instituted the above suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs from the respondents alleging that they paid the said amount to the respondents-defendants towards pasupu kumkuma of their deceased daughter as well as Adapaduchu lanchanams. Pending the suit, they filed three applications viz., I.A.No.711 of 2009 to reopen the suit; I.A.No.712 of 2009 to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking certain documents; and I.A.No.713 of 2009 to receive certain documents as per the list of documents which were already marked as Exs.A.1 to A.8 respectively. It was stated in the affidavit that though the Xerox copies of the documents now sought to be marked were already marked as Exs.A.1 to A.8, at the time of arguments, as certain objections were raised regarding the admissibility of those documents as some of them being Xerox copies, they were advised to file the above documents to prove the authenticity of the documents. Opposing the applications, the respondents-defendants filed counter contending that as per the averments made in the plaint, the alleged payment of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the respondents-defendants was on 18.1.2003 and the marriage was performed on 12.02.2003, and that the alleged two sale deeds sought to be marked are, dated 25.6.2003 which are four months subsequent to the marriage and therefore, they are irrelevant and the consideration shown therein is only Rs.47,000/- each. The other proposed documents sought to be marked are inadmissible in evidence since P.W.1 alone cannot prove the genuineness of the said documents. Further the proposed SBI account does not contain any entry/transaction from 1.1.2003 to 25.1.2003 which is the relevant period mentioned in the suit. In view of the same, it is alleged that the applications filed by the plaintiffs are only to protract the litigation and prayed for dismissal of the same. It is to be seen that after completion of the trial, arguments were advanced and written arguments were also filed which were placed on record. After the completion of the arguments, petitioners-plaintiffs filed I.A.Nos.459 of 2009,460 of 2009 and 461 of 2009 to reopen the suit, recall P.W.1 and to mark the copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.51 of 2003. On dismissal of the said applications, both the counsel further advanced their arguments and at the stage when the matter was again reserved for judgment, the impugned application viz. I.A.No.712 of 2009 was came to be filed along with I.A.Nos.711 and 713 of 2009. The lower Court after noticing the above facts and following the judgment of this Court in Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga Prasad & Others[1] dismissed the impugned I.A. along with the other two I.As. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the Xerox copies of the documents now sought to be marked were already marked as Exs.A.1 to A.8 no prejudice would be caused to the respondents-defendants by marking the certified copies of those documents by recalling P.W.1, is devoid of merits for the simple reason that the documents which are now sought to be marked were not filed along with the plaint nor before the settlement of the issues. Though the plaintiffs will have a chance to produce those documents during the course of evidence by seeking condonation of delay under Order 13 C.P.C. the plaintiffs had not availed the said opportunity, but filed the applications in I.A.Nos.459 of 2009,460 of 2009 and 461 of 2009 to reopen the suit, recall P.W.1 and to mark the copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.51 of 2003 and on dismissal of the same, twice the arguments were heard in the suit and at last, the matter was reserved for judgment. At this stage, if the petitioners-plaintiffs are permitted to mark the documents as sought for by recalling P.W.1, the respondents-defendants will be deprived of the opportunity to rebut the genuineness of the said documents. Further the contents in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents-defendants discloses that the documents now sought to be marked are subsequent to the transaction alleged in the plaint and they are irrelevant for the purpose of proving the suit claim. In that view of the matter, no illegality or infirmity is discernable with the order passed by the lower Court in dismissing the impugned I.A. warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed at the threshold. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 27, 2009 Tsr. [1] 2009(3) ALT 236