COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri G.V. Sree Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel representing Sri A. Giridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. C.R.P.No.5755 of 2018 is directed against the order of the Court of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in I.A.No.451 of 2018 in I.A.No.1088 of 2012 in O.S.No.699 of 2012 dated 24.08.2018.

C.R.P.No.5756 of 2018 is directed against the order of the Court of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in I.A.No.424 of 2018 in O.S.699 of 2012 dated 24.08.2018.

3. By the impugned order, in a petition filed under section 151 C.P.C in I.A.No.451 of 2018, the certified copy of the Commissioner’s report marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were directed to be de-exhibited in the enquiry in I.A.No.1088 of 2012 in I.A.No.873 of 2012 in O.S.No.699 of 2012, accepting the request on behalf of 1st defendant, who was the petitioner therein.

4. By the impugned order in I.A.No.424 of 2018 demarking of Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.12, certified copies of reports of Commissioner was directed, that were marked through P.W.1 in the main suit O.S.No.699 of 2012.

5. The plaintiff who is the petitioner in I.A.No.1088 of 2012 and being the 1st respondent in I.A.No.451 of 2018 has presented these Civil Revision Petitions.

6. None appeared for the respondent No.1, though served notices in both these Civil Revision Petitions.

7. Though the suit is of year 2012, it appears that the parties were trying to proceed on with I.A.No.1088 of 2012, filed under order XXXIX rule 2-A C.P.C. The petitioner has complained that the 1st respondent herein as violated the orders of an exparte order of injunction granted in his favour by the trial Court. In the course of recording evidence of the petitioner in the above I.A.No.1088 of 2012, it appears that reports of Commissioner have been exhibited as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2.

8. Now, on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that such course followed by the learned trial Judge is proper and when once documents have been marked, they cannot be de-exhibited particularly when they happened to be public document.

9. Now, the point for determination is – “whether the learned trial Judge was right in permitting de-exhibiting the documents, so marked in the course of trial and to mark Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.12?”

10. It is to be noted that, once document is marked, it becomes part of evidence and as a part of material record. Therefore, in any suit or other proceedings, consideration relating to de-marking or de-exhibiting any document cannot arise and Courts cannot exercise their powers under section 151 C.P.C for such purpose. If such demarking or de-exhibiting is permitted, it amounts to eschewing evidence on record, which has been brought out by the parties. Therefore, this practice of demarking or de-exhibiting documents seems to be quite unhealthy and it is being followed in trial Courts more often that not without considering the effect and consequences of such practice. Introducing any document in evidence by a party cannot be deemed an empty formality. It has its own implications and as well as consequences. Apparently, these factors are being followed in breach in practice.

11. Even in the case on hand, certified copies of reports of learned Commissioner have been exhibited on behalf of the petitioner in both proceedings. There cannot be any dispute that the certified copy of a document remains a public document and it can be made admissible in given circumstances. There is no bar as such, as to admissibility of public document. Questioning of probative value of such document is completely different, which forms part and parcel of the duty of the Court in appreciation of evidence.

12. Even otherwise, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, mere marking of reports of learned Commissioner cannot be have any bearing. When the Commissioner is very much available, it is necessary that the Commissioner be examined as witness, when the contents of the report are disputed by a party