ORDER :

1. This Revision is filed to set aside the docket order dated 17.03.2022 in C.A. No. 95 of 2022 in O.S. No. 735 of 2008 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

2. Heard Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondents are not necessary parties to the present revision and the said fact was also mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioner in the cause title itself.

3. The petitioner herein, third party to the suit, had filed an application vide Copy Application No. 95 of 2022 in O.S. No. 735 of 2008 under Rule-188 (2) of the Civil Rules of Practice, 1990 (for short ‘CRP’) seeking copies of certified copies of Exs.A11 to A14 for the following purposes:

(i) For verification.

(ii) To keep in record.

(iii) To file in Court.

4. The Court below while refusing the said application, passed the following order dated 17.03.2022:

“Heard.

This is a petition filed under Rule-188 (2) of CRP along with third party affidavit and vakalat on behalf of defendants seeking certified copies of Ex.A11 to A14 marked in O.S. No. 735/2008.

Heard the counsel for petitioner. Perused the record.

Upon perusal it can be seen that the documents Ex.A11 to A14 are the certified copies of the original exhibits marked in O.S. No. 735/2008 which were substituted in place of the original documents while returning the same vide orders in I.A. No. 627/2021 in OS No. 735/2008, dated 14.07.2021.

As per rule 188 (2) of CRP any person who is not a party to a suit may apply to the court for grant of copies of judgments, decrees or orders made or of any documents exhibited in such suit or proceeding. In this suit the exhibits are original documents which were returned to the plaintiff and the case record consists of certified copies of the documents. Since the certified copies are not the exhibited documents, this application is refused.”

5. The above stated facts would reveal that the petitioner herein is a third party to O.S. No. 735 of 2008. The said suit was disposed of on 02.08.2014. In the said suit, Exs.A1 to A15 were exhibited. The plaintiff in the said suit had filed an application vide I.A. No. 627 of 2021 to return the said Exs.A1 to A15. The Court below vide order dated 14.07.2021 allowed the said I.A. and returned the said documents i.e. Exs.A1 to A15, with a direction to substitute certified copies of the said documents. The plaintiff therein had complied with the said order by substituting the certified copies of the said documents.

6. Now, the petitioner herein, who is a third party to the said suit, filed the above Copy Application supported by an affidavit under Rule-188 (2) of the CRP seeking certified copies of Exs.A11 to A14 on the above stated purpose.

7. The Court below, vide order dated 17.03.2022 refused the said Copy Application on the following grounds:

(i) Originals of the said documents were returned to the plaintiff.

(ii) The case record consists of certified copies of the documents.

(iii) Certified copies are not the exhibited documents.

8. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein filed the present revision.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on an application made by the petitioner, on payment of required fee, the petitioner herein is entitled to obtain the certified copies of the documents which are available in the Court. Rule-188 of the CRP and Circular Orders, 1980, the Court is bound to issue the certified copies. He has placed reliance on the principle laid down in Sri Kathi Narsinga Rao vs. Kodi Supriya, 2016 (9) Laws (APH) 50.

10. In view of the above said discussion, the seminal question that arises for consideration in the present revision is:

Whether the Court below is justified in rejecting the Copy Application filed by the petitioner herein, who is a third party to the suit, for grant of copy of the certified copies of the documents?

FINDING OF THE COURT:

11. As the question involved in the present revision is concerned with all the Civil Courts in the State and having re