Marked documents are not admitted as evidence without judicial determination; objections to admissibility can be raised at any stage.

ORDER :

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.

This Civil Revision Petition No.5937 of 2016 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 09.11.2016 in dismissal of I.A.No.882 of 2016 in O.S.No.1015 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. This Civil Revision Petition No.5941 of 2016 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 09.11.2016 in allowing I.A.No.454 of 2016 in O.S.No.1015 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, to summon the officials i.e., Secretary, Gram Panchayat of Rampally Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to appear with relevant Grampanchayat records pertaining to Laxminagar Colony situated in Sy.Nos.381, 382, 383, 384 and 387 at Rampally Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and Tahsildar of Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to appear with revenue records pertaining to the lands mentioned above to produce evidence.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts in C.R.P.No.5937 of 2016 are that the respondents/plaintiffs herein filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents/defendants therein in respect of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, it appears that the plaintiff relied upon and got marked through PW1, as Ex.A-10 was a Xerox copy and it was a created one, there is a burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove the document according to the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), 2005, which is said to have submitted a report by Tahsildar Keesara to the District Collector in respect of personal inspection relating to the land. Being aggrieved by the said markings of the said documents, the present revision is filed contending that Ex.A-10 was a Xerox copy and the same is not admissible evidence filed by the PW1 and the trial Court has dismissed the petition under Order XIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was being illegal and that Xerox copy of the document being inadmissible in evidence and the finding of the learned trial Court ought to have decided immediately and cannot be postponed and inadmissible documents can be rejected at any time. Further, prayed to allow the application i.e., I.A.No.882 of 2016.

5. Heard Sri B.Sathish, learned counsel representing Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajan Sri Krishnan, Sri B. Srinivasulu and Sri R. Prasad learned counsel appearing for respondents. Perused the entire material on record.

6. Admittedly, the said document which is marked as Ex.A-10 was a Xerox copy, though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said document can be obtained under RTI Act and the same cannot be marked. Learned trial Court ought to have considered that the document which is marked was submitted by the Tahsildar Keesara to the District Collector in respect of the personal inspection which is conducted relating to the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the said document being only the Xerox copy and there is a dispute raised regarding the contents of the documents which are created by PW1, is a scribe of the said document. Unless and until the same in confronted to the concerned, the same cannot be treated into evidence. Further, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Yeluvolu Blessy Sheeba v/s. Amgoth Anitha Nayak , C.R.P.No.1769 of 2023, wherein held that:

“The learned counsel for the respondent- defendant placed reliance on the judgment of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in Sy