IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (21ST) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C. R. P. Nos.2348, 2402 and 2404 of 2010 CRP No.2348 of 2010: Between: Dr. Bonala Akbar Altaf … Petitioner And: Padam Chakradhar … Respondent CRP No.2402 of 2010: Between: Dr. Bonala Akbar Altaf … Petitioner And: Padam Chakradhar … Respondent CRP No.2404 of 2010: Between: Dr. Bonala Akbar Altaf … Petitioner And: Padam Chakradhar … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C. R. P. Nos.2348, 2402 and 2404 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These three revision petitions are directed against the orders dated 20.04.2010 in IA No.396 of 2010, which is filed under Order VIII Rule 1(a) CPC to receive the documents (CRP No.2348 of 2010), IA No.395 of 2010, which is filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall DW.1 (CRP No.2402 of 2010), and IA No.394 of 2010, which is filed under Section 151 CPC to reopen the evidence of the defendants (CRP No.2404 of 2010), respectively, in OS No.61 of 2006 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said petitions were allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit OS No.61 of 2006 for specific performance of agreement of sale. The respondent/ defendant also filed suit OS No.1195 of 2007 for recovery of possession of the same property. Both the suits were clubbed and common evidence was recorded. During the course of trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and DWs.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the defendant. The matter is at the stage of arguments. At that stage, the respondent/defendant filed three interlocutory applications i.e., IA No.396 of 2010 for receiving certain documents, IA No.395 of 2010 for recall of DW.1 and IA No.394 of 2010 for reopening of the evidence of defendants. The said applications were opposed by the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground of delay and also that no pleading was made in respect of the said documents in the written statement. The trial Court, by impugned orders allowed the said petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present three revision petitions. 4. The documents sought to be filed by the defendant are the certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.43 of 2006 and certified copy of charge sheet and some photos and negatives. According to the respondent/defendant, in the evidence as DW.1 he deposed about the obstruction caused by the plaintiff and his giving a complaint at PS Asifnagar and that his complaint was not registered, but he came to know that the police registered a case in Cr.No.43 of 2006 against him at the instance of the plaintiff’s father-in-law. The respondent/defendant therefore seeks to file the certified copy of the FIR and charge sheet along with 12 photographs. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contends that as the documents are not referred to in the written statement and the said documents were available even by the date of DW.1 giving evidence, they cannot now be received when the evidence is closed and the matter is posted for arguments. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would submit that necessary pleading is made in the plaint filed by him in OS No.1195 of 2007 regarding the incident and at the time of giving evidence as DW.1 he was not aware of the registration of the case against him in Cr.No.43 of 2006. 6. It is to be noted that both the suits are clubbed together for joint trial and common evidence is recorded. The incidents that are referred to in the pleadings filed by the defendant in his suit only and therefore he wants to bring the same on record by way of evidence. It is not necessary that the incidents must have been pleaded in the pleadings of both the suits and it is suffice if reference is made in any one of them. Even otherwise, when the documents sought to be filed are public documents i.e., certified copy of FIR and charge sheet, to show the registration of the criminal complaint against the respondent/defendant, there cannot be any tenable objection for the petitioner/plaintiff for receiving the said documents. The documents would be received only subject to proof and relevancy and their probative value would be considered by the Court at the appropriate time. 7. Having regard to the fact that the FIR and charge sheet are public documents, it is held that they can be permitted to be filed by the respondent/defendant. However, insofar as the photographs are concerned, their admission into evidence at this stage cannot be permitted. 8. In the circumstances, the impugned order in IA No.396 of 2010 is modified to the effect that the FIR in Cr.No.43 of 2006 of Asif Nagar and charge sheet be received in evidence subject to proof and relevancy and the other documents cannot be permitted to be received. The evidence is permitted to be reopened and DW.1 recalled for the limited purpose as stated above. 9. In the result, all the three revision petitions i.e., CRP Nos. 2348, 2402 and 2404 of 2010 are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 21.02.2011 bss