THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NOS.1448, 1986 AND 2078 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER Heard both the counsel. 2. As the subject matter is connected and the three revisions arose out of the I.As. filed in the same O.P. and as the parties are common, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Aggrieved by the common order and decree dated 25.02.2009 passed by the court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.Nos.257, 258 and 259 of 2009 in O.P.No.97/2008 in allowing the said I.As. filed by the petitioner in the said O.P., for receiving of certain documents, by reopening the evidence of P.W.1, by recalling him for marking the said documents, the respondent nos.3 and 2 in the O.P., filed the present revisions. 4. The 1st respondent herein is M/s Other Back Ward Classes Railway Employees Association, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and it is represented by its General Secretary and Ex President K.Rushiswar. The said Association represented by the said person, filed the petition in O.P.No.97/2008 under Section 23 of A.P. Public Societies Registration Act, for a direction to the Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway – 2nd respondent, to withdraw recognition given to revision petitioners and other office bears of the Association, as they got illegally elected even after expulsion by the federation, which is an apex body. 5. The 1st respondent – Association, filed the present three applications in I.A.Nos.257, 258 and 259 of 2009 in O.P.No.97 of 2008 for receiving of documents Exs.A-22 to A-31 by reopening the evidence of P.W.1 and by recalling him, who is the General Secretary and Ex Preisdent of the 1st respondent – Association. By the impugned order, the court below allowed the said I.As. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions are filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners herein contended that the P.W.1 was given ample opportunity while recording evidence and he failed to avail the opportunity and when the case is coming up for arguments and in order to drag on the matter, the present applications are filed. He further contended that Exs.A-22 and A-23 pertain to one Mr. Ramakrishna who was the Ex General Secretary of the 1st respondent – Association and the said documents were to be marked through him and not by the 1st respondent- P.W.1. He stated that the other documents Exs.A-24 to A-26, A-28 and A-29 pertain to federation and they are the third party evidence of P.W.2 and hence P.W.1 is not the competent person to file these documents. He stated that Ex.A-30 is the special power of attorney given to P.W.1 by P.W.3, who has no power, since the Association was not in existence and not recognized by the Railway Administration. He further stated that Ex.A-31 is the minutes of emergency CEC meeting dated 5.10.2008 which was conducted by the 1st respondent – P.W.1 and he has no power to conduct the said meeting, as the Association was not recognized. He further contended that the 1st respondent retired from service on 1.12.2008, therefore, he has no locus standi to continue the O.P. He stated that the Railway Administration was satisfied that the 1st petitioner herein conducted the general body meeting as per the procedure laid down and the list of elected officer bearers was circulated on 1.5.2008 and the present application filed by the 1st respondents, ought to have been rejected by the court below. As the court below without considering these circumstances, allowed the I.As., the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting 1st respondent – P.W.1, submitted that the documents which were sought to be marked were obtained under Right to Information Act and these documents were sought to be marked before the Commissioner, who was appointed for recording the cross- examination of P.W.1, but he refused to receive the same, because of the objections raised by the petitioners herein, and he suggested to file the documents before the court and, therefore, the present applications were filed. He stated that though Mr.K.Rushiswar who is present General Secretary and Ex-president of the Association, was retired, he was given the general power of attorney to continue the proceedings by the present President. He further submitted that by filing the present documents, the 1st respondent would be able to prove his case effectively and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the revisions. 8. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for my consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be interfered with? 9. The Ex-President of the 1st respondent – Association representing the Association, filed the suit for withdrawing the recognition given to the petitioners herein and other officer bears, on the ground that they got illegally elected even after expulsion by the federation, from the Association. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 has been prosecuting the litigation, while he was in service and has given evidence before the court and the present petition is only to recall him to mark certain documents, in continuation of his prior evidence. It is also not in dispute that P.W.1 sought to marked those documents before the Commissioner and as they were not received, the present I.As. were filed and in the meanwhile he retired from service. It is further not in dispute that P.W.1 is given G.P.A. by the present President of the Association, to conduct the case. However, his competency to give G.P.A. to P.W.1, cannot be gone into by this court as it is alien to the present I.As. and the only issue that is required to be considered by this court, as found by the court below, is that whether the P.W.1 has given proper explanation for not filing these documents earlier, as envisaged under Order 7, Rule 14 of C.P.C. As already noted above, P.W.1 sought to marked those documents, but based on the objections raised, they were not received and the Commissioner suggested to file the same before the court and as P.W.1 is in possession of these documents, said to have obtained under Right to Information Act, filed them before the court. 10. It is further to be noticed that the above documents were received by the court, subject to proof and relevancy. Therefore, in my considered view, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by allowing the present I.As. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the court below rightly considering the above aspects, allowed the I.As, and the impugned order does not warrant any interference. I do not find any merit in the revisions and the same are accordingly dismissed, confirming the impugned order. 12. It is needless to point out that the court below shall dispose of the O.P. on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation in this order. 13. No order as to costs. AVS ------------------------------- 15—10—2009