IMPORTANT POINT
Certified copies can only be issued for original documents, not photocopies, ensuring the authenticity and reliability of evidence in court.

ORDER:

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, in unnumbered I.A.of 2022 in O.S.No.521 of 2008, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 203-A of Civil Rules of Practice r/w Rule 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to issue certified copy of the unmarked Agreement of sale dated 18.01.1997, vide CA.No.1447 of 2022 filed in the suit was dismissed.

2. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.

3. The petitioner stated that she filed LGOP.No.821 of 2003 against the respondent seeking to declare him as a land grabber and to evict him from the scheduled property and the said case is pending. Subsequent to filing of the said LGOP, the respondent filed suit in OS.No.285 of 2004 for permanent injunction before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Prasanthnagar and later, the suit was transferred to the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally and renumbered as OS.No.521 of 2008, and eventually, the suit was dismissed for default on 03.04.2010.

3.1. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application IA.No.453 of 2010 for the return of the unmarked certified copy of the agreement and the trial Court allowed the said application by ordering substitution of the same with photostat copy of the said document and returned the original unmarked document to the respondent.

3.2. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner approached the trial Court to direct the office to issue certified copy of the unmarked Agreement of Sale dated 18.01.1997, which was permitted to be substituted by the respondent by photostat copy of the said document. The trial Court on hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire material, found that only xerox copy/photostat copy of agreement of sale was on record and therefore, it does not have any power to certify Xerox copies/photocopies and accordingly, dismissed the petition.

4. Heard Sri Ali Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Jamali, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire material available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court failed to consider the provisions of Rule 203(A) of the Civil Rules of Practice and erred in dismissing the application without assigning any proper reason. Hence, prayed to allow this Revision Petition.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the combined High Court for the States of Telangana and High Court in G. Suverna Bai v. M. Ramesh Chander, 2016(161) AIC 275 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supeme Court in K. Nagarajan v. K.S. Ramasamy, 2004(1) CivilLJ 344,

7. In G. Suverna Bai’s case (supra), the High Court held that the lower court erred in rejecting the application-I.A.No.59 of 2013 filed for obtaining a certified copy of a Certificate issued under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, which is crucial for the case of the petitioner and is available in another court proceeding (O.S.No.9 of 1992), on technical grounds and accordingly, allowed the Civil Revision Petition.

8. In K.Nagarajan’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the petitioner therein to take certified copy of the unmarked document filed in a suit for effective inspection.

9. In the instant case, the petitioner sought for issuance of certified copy of photostat copy of unmarked Agreement of sale produced by the respondent in the suit. Therefore, the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are no way helpful to the petitioner as the facts of the above judgment and the present case are completely different and the trial Court did not dismiss the application on technical grounds.

10. Here, it is apposite to reproduce Section 204(A) of