The court clarified that receiving documents into record does not equate to their admissibility as evidence without strict compliance with statutory requirements.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A.No.250 of 2025 in O.S.No.21 of 2022 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kamareddy (for short the trial Court) in allowing the petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2 herein praying the trial Court to receive the photo copy/Xerox copy of the unregistered will deed dated 23.08.2020 and photo copy/Xerox copy of legal notice dated 13.12.2021 as secondary evidence under Section 60 (C) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and acknowledgment of petition dated 15.03.2022 issued by Jukkal Police Station and crime petition acknowledgment No.KMRDYJKLKMRDY/150322/00035 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy under order VII Rule 14(3) CPC. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties herein shall be referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

2. Heard Mr.Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.S.Srinivasa Chary, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioners are the plaintiffs before the trial Court, who have filed suit in O.S.No.21 of 2022 before the trial Court, seeking to declare them as owners of the suit schedule property as per the registered will deed document No.171/III/2018 dated 10.07.2018; to dispossess defendant Nos.1 to 7 from the suit schedule property and to induct the plaintiffs; further, to declare the unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.2020 as null and void and to grant future mesne profits for the suit schedule property @ Rs.25,000/- per acre per annum from defendants from the date of the suit till plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 are inducted in possession of the suit schedule property and award costs of the suit.

4. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC in I.A.No.250 of 2025 in O.S.No.21 of 2022 seeking to receive xerox copy of the unregistered will deed dated 23.08.2020 and xerox copy of legal notice dated 13.12.2021, acknowledgment of Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy, dated 14.04.2022 and acknowledgment of Police of Jukkal, dated 15.03.2022 on the ground that they are material documents to be received and marked on behalf of petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2.

5. The gist of the affidavit is that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking a declaration of ownership over the suit schedule property on the strength of a registered Will Deed dated 10.07.2018, which is disputed by the defendants through a written statement filed in O.S. No. 21 of 2022. It is stated that prior to the present suit, Defendant No.4 and his elder brother late K. Akshay Kumar Singh had instituted a suit for partition in O.S.No.5 of 2022 (old) O.S.No.50 of 2022 (new) based on an alleged unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.2020 said to have been executed by their grandfather late K. Jagath Singh, but due to the death of Akshay Kumar Singh the said suit was not prosecuted by the legal heirs and was dismissed for default. It is alleged that during the pendency of the earlier suit, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were residing at their native village and that Defendant No.2, who was in custody of all original documents, had kept them at his house, from where they were allegedly stolen between 08.03.2022 and 10.03.2022 during his absence, including the original unregistered Will dated 23.08.2020 and the legal notice dated 13.12.2021. It is further stated that a complaint in this regard was eventually lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy on 14.04.2022. The affidavit also claims that the documents were lost, and owing to such loss of the originals, the deponent seeks permission to receive Xerox copies of the unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.2020 and the legal notice dated 13.12.2021 as secondary evidence.

6. Opposing the said application, the plaintiffs filed a counter