IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.203 & 233 OF 2011 Between:: Naregudem Sriram Reddy and others …Petitioners A n d Naregudem Papi Reddy and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.203 & 233 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.203 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 29.12.2010 in I.A.No.707 of 2010 in O.S.No.710 of 2008, on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein, the plaintiffs, under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, seeking permission to file certain documents, was dismissed. 2. C.R.P.No.233 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 29.12.2010 in I.A.No.708 of 2010 in O.S.No.710 of 2008, on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein, the plaintiffs, under Order VIII Rule 17 CPC, seeking permission to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking the documents, was dismissed, in view of dismissal of I.A.No.707 of 2010. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 4. The petitioners herein filed the suit against the respondents for permanent injunction. The respondents/defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. Necessary issues have been settled and trial of the suit has also commenced. It is stated that P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.707 of 2010 seeking permission to file certain documents and I.A.No.708 of 2010 seeking to recall P.W.1 to enable him to mark those documents. As both the applications have been dismissed, the plaintiffs filed the present civil revision petitions. 5. According to the petitioners, the documents sought to be filed were, in fact, filed in an earlier suit O.S.No.21 of 1984 and the said matter came up before this Court by way of second appeal and after disposal of the second appeal only he could apply for certified copies of those documents. 6. The main objection raised by the respondents is that earlier the petitioners have filed two applications for receiving the documents and even at that time, the petitioners have not chosen to file the present documents and by filing applications for receipt of documents piece meal, the petitioners are trying to protract the trial of the suit. 7. As it is stated that the documents, which are now sought to be filed were, in fact, filed in an earlier proceedings between the same parties, it is considered that an opportunity can be given to the petitioners to file certified copies of those documents. The relevancy or otherwise of the said documents cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. There cannot be any tenable objection for granting leave to file the said documents. The trial Court shall receive the same only subject to proof and relevancy. For the said purpose, P.W.1 is permitted to be recalled for further evidence. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside and consequently both the I.As stand allowed. 8. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY 29th September, 2011 Lrkm