1. Civil revision against order refusing to receive documents under Order VIII Rule 1(3) CPC. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 2291
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.
Maddela Kalpana and others – Petitioner
Versus
Maddela Janaki and others – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No.2238 of 2024
Decided On : 01-09-2025
Important Points
Certified copies of registered documents are public documents under Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, admissible as secondary evidence if originals are unavailable, such as when mortgaged for loans, provided a foundation is laid in pleadings.
Subject
Civil Law - Evidence Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 61, 65(c), 74(2), 77 and 79 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 57(5) - Admissibility of certified copies of registered documents - Certified copy of a registered sale deed, being a public document under Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, is admissible in evidence for proving the contents of its original - Under the Registration Act, a certified copy given under Section 57 is admissible for proving the contents of the original document (Paras 9, 10).
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1(3) - Application to receive documents - Secondary evidence - If original documents are mortgaged with a bank for obtaining a loan, such constitutes a valid explanation for not producing the original documents under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act (Para 11).
(C) Pleadings - Foundation for secondary evidence - If the documents are mentioned in the written statement and are crucial for adjudicating the suit on merits, they should be received even if not filed initially with the written statement, provided the foundation is laid (Paras 11, 12).
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Defendants filed a written statement and subsequently moved applications to receive certified copies of a sale deed, a gift deed, an encumbrance certificate, and property tax receipts, and to mark them as secondary evidence. The Trial Court dismissed the applications, observing that the defendants failed to explain the absence of original documents, failed to lay a foundation in the written statement, and did not satisfy the requirements under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court failed to appreciate that certified copies of registered sale deeds are public documents and admissible under the Evidence Act and Registration Act. The explanation that original documents were mortgaged for loans is sufficient under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act. Since the documents were mentioned in the written statement, the foundation had been laid.
Issues: Whether the certified copies of the registered documents are admissible in evidence and whether they can be marked as secondary evidence given the circumstances of their non-production.
Ratio Decidendi: Certified copies of registered documents are public documents under Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, making them admissible for proving the contents of the original. Mortgaging originals for loans is a plausible reason to prevent production under Section 65(c). When such documents are crucial for adjudication and mentioned in the pleadings, they should be admitted to ensure a just decision on merits without causing prejudice to the opposing party.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed; order of the Trial Court set aside and application for receiving documents allowed.
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1(3) - Application to receive documents - Secondary evidence - If original documents are mortgaged with a bank for obtaining a loan, such constitutes a valid explanation for not producing the original documents under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act (Para 11).
(C) Pleadings - Foundation for secondary evidence - If the documents are mentioned in the written statement and are crucial for adjudicating the suit on merits, they should be received even if not filed initially with the written statement, provided the foundation is laid (Paras 11, 12).
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Defendants filed a written statement and subsequently moved applications to receive certified copies of a sale deed, a gift deed, an encumbrance certificate, and property tax receipts, and to mark them as secondary evidence. The Trial Court dismissed the applications, observing that the defendants failed to explain the absence of original documents, failed to lay a foundation in the written statement, and did not satisfy the requirements under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court failed to appreciate that certified copies of registered sale deeds are public documents and admissible under the Evidence Act and Registration Act. The explanation that original documents were mortgaged for loans is sufficient under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act. Since the documents were mentioned in the written statement, the foundation had been laid.
Issues: Whether the certified copies of the registered documents are admissible in evidence and whether they can be marked as secondary evidence given the circumstances of their non-production.
Ratio Decidendi: Certified copies of registered documents are public documents under Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, making them admissible for proving the contents of the original. Mortgaging originals for loans is a plausible reason to prevent production under Section 65(c). When such documents are crucial for adjudication and mentioned in the pleadings, they should be admitted to ensure a just decision on merits without causing prejudice to the opposing party.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed; order of the Trial Court set aside and application for receiving documents allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
-
property law
-
partition
- suit for partition (Para 4)
-
partition
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Thomas Lloyd
For the Respondent: G. Hemachalam
For the Petitioner: Thomas Lloyd
For the Respondent: G. Hemachalam
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued original documents pledged with bank; respondents contended no explanation for belated filing. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Certified copies of registered sale deed and gift deed are public documents admissible as secondary evidence under Evidence Act. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Certified copy of registered document under Section 74(2) Evidence Act is admissible to prove contents of original. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Civil revision allowed; impugned order set aside; application to receive documents allowed. (Para 14 )
6. Is a certified copy of a registered sale deed admissible as secondary evidence?
Yes, a certified copy of a registered sale deed, being a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act, is admissible to prove the contents of its original. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. What is required to produce secondary evidence under Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act?
The party must provide a proper explanation for why the original document cannot be produced, such as it being pledged with a bank. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. Does a certified copy under Section 57(5) of the Registration Act need independent witness proof?
No, when the certified copy is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act and Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, it is admissible without independent witness proof. (Para 9 )
ORDER :
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the Order dated 16.04.2024 in I.A.No.2045 of 2023 in O.S.No.279 of 2020, passed by the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the application filed by the petitioners, under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of CPC, to receive documents, was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri Thomas Lloyed, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri G.Hemachalam, learned counsel for respondents.
3. The revision petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 4, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are plaintiffs and respondent No.5 is defendant No.5 in the suit.
4. Brief facts of the case which led to filing of the present revision petition are that respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed a suit vide O.S.No.279 of 2019, against the petitioners and respondent No.5, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property; that revision petitioners entered appearance and filed their written statement; that pending adjudication of the suit, the revision petitioners filed two applications vide I.A.Nos.2045 and 2046 of 2023, one to receive the documents, viz., certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No.408 of 1972 dated 14.02.1972, certified copy of Gift Deed bearing document No.2362 of 2022 dated 21.11.2022, Encumbrance Certificate and Property Tax Receipt and another to mark the said documents as secondary evidence. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed counter resisting the said application.
5. The trial Court, on due consideration of the pleadings and contentions put forth by both the parties, dismissed the application vide impugned Order dated 16.04.2024, with an observation that petitioners failed to give any explanation for not producing the original documents and also failed to lay any foundation in their written statement for producing certified copies. The trial Court has also observed that petitioners failed to satisfy the requirement under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, before seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 4 submitted that revision petitioners have raised loan by pledging the original documents, due to which, they were unable to file the original documents along with their written statement before the trial Court. He further submitted that petitioners have categorically mentioned about the said documents in their written statement, basing on which they are claiming title over the suit schedule property and hence, they are very crucial for proper adjudication of the case, however, the trial Court, without properly appreciating all these aspects, dismissed the application and therefore, he prayed to allow the present Revision Petition.
7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs submitted that petitioners failed to file certified copies along with their written statement and did not give cogent and plausible reasons for filing the said documents at belated stage. He further submitted that petitioners stated that they raised loan by pledging the original documents for the first time in the revision petition and did not give any explanation for the delay in filing the documents before the trial Court and therefore, the revision petitioners are not entitled to relief sought for and accordingly, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Apropos the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, the issue that requires to be adjudicated in this Revision is whether the certified copies of the aforesaid documents are admissible in evidence and whether they can be marked as secondary evidence.
9. For adjudicating the said issue, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Appaiya Vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi and others ,
“…The hollowness and unsustainability of the said objection would be re
