THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5965 OF 2010 DATED: 11.03.2011 Between: Chayala Agumanchamma. .... PETITIONER And Kommanaboina Venkateswarlu & 8 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 30.09.2010, in I.A.No.992 of 2001 in O.S.No.258 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-plaintiff under Section 451 CPC to reopen the evidence and recall P.W.1 for marking certain documents, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel on either side. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants. Respondents filed written statement contesting the suit. 4. During the course of trial, plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants. At that stage, petitioner filed I.A.No.992 of 2010 for recalling herself for further evidence to enable her to mark certain documents namely: (i) copy of the plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner in final decree proceedings in I.A.No.1911 of 1960 in O.S.No.156 of 1953. (ii) Certified copy of delivery receipt in E.P.No.403 of1965 in O.S.No.156 of 1953; (iii) Certified copy of the decree copy along with schedule in O.S.No.364 of 1961; (iv) Certified copy of the decree in O.S.No.70 of 1989. 5. As can be seen from the description of the documents, they are all certified copies of judicial proceedings, which are public documents, and hence there cannot be any tenable objection for marking the same. Further, according to the petitioner-plaintiff the above documents relate to the earlier proceedings between the vendor-Suseelamma and the defendants and they are necessary to prove her claim for possession of the suit property and also her allegation that the respondents-defendants have been interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property, even during the time of her vendor. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that P.W.1 in her cross-examination has made certain admissions and the proposed documents will have the effect of verifying the impact of those admissions. 7. Whatever admissions that are already made by P.W.1 in her cross-examination will continue to remain on record, notwithstanding the filing of the proposed documents. It is ultimately for the trial Court to evaluate the entire evidence in a holistic manner so as to arrive at a just decision in the matter. If the documents sought to be filed are found to be irrelevant, they would certainly be eschewed from consideration by the trial Court, but when the party intends to file certain documents, which are public documents being the certified copies of the judicial proceedings, it is only just and proper that in the interest of fair trial an opportunity be given to produce the said documents so that the trial Court will have the benefit of the entire evidence brought on record for effective and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute. In that view of the matter, it is considered that refusal to grant permission to produce the documents, especially the certified copies of the judicial proceedings, is unsustainable. It is however open to the trial Court to consider the relevancy and probative value of the documents at an appropriate stage. However, inasmuch as the said documents are sought to be produced by the plaintiff at a belated stage, towards the fag end of the trial, it is considered just and proper that the respondents-defendants be compensated for the said delay by payment of costs of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred only) within two weeks. On payment of such costs, petitioner-plaintiff be permitted to be recalled and produce the documents. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. 8. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 11th March, 2011. Tsy