ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2020 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned judgment’) in I.A.No.497 of 2019 in S.O.P.No.269 of 2012 on the file of learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Godavarikhani, the respondents filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Godavarikhani.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed petition under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 against the respondent Nos.1 to 10 for certain reliefs.

During the pendency of the petition, the respondents have filed petition in I.A.No.497 of 2019 Under Order XIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein it was alleged that that the respondents/petitioners during the cross examination of their evidence as PW1, marked Exs.A1 to A58, out of which most of the exhibits are Xerox copies and electronic records, which cannot be marked without following the procedure, as such the same are required to be de-exhibited.

The petitioners have not even filed an application to lead secondary evidence or any other application to accept the electronic record. To the above said petition, the petitioners have filed counter stating that the respondents have not mentioned in the counter as to which documents are Xerox copies and which are the documents that need to be de-

exhibited. The intention of the respondents is to delay the proceedings. It is further contended in the counter that some of the documents were received under Right to Information Act and some of the documents were original and other documents are certified copies and in fact no documents are Xerox copies and no electronic records were filed before the Court. Further, during the course of cross examination of PW1 either of the respondents or their counsel did not raise any objection and in such circumstances, once the document is marked, it cannot be de-exhibited on the ground of such documents being Xerox copies, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on the rival contentions, the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Godavarikhani has allowed the petition by de-exhibiting Exs.A1, A6, A12, A13, A16 to A20, A29 to A37, A39 to A41 and deleting them from “A” series of the petitioners’ evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of revision.

6. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that there is no provision in CPC to de-exhibit the exhibits that were already marked and that trial court ought not to have entertained the petition, which is contrary to established principles of law. As seen from the record, the petition in I.A.No.497 of 2019 was filed under Order XIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

According to Order 13 Rule 3 CPC the Court may at any stage of the suit, reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds for such rejection. Thus, the above contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that there is no provision in CPC to de-

exhibit the exhibits that were already marked, will not sustain.

The learned trial Court Judge observed in the impugned order that though Xerox and electronic records marked under above exhibits do not require any stamp duty but since Ex.A1, A6, A13, A13, A16 to A20, A29 to A33, A36 and A37 are Xerox copies, they are inadmissible in evidence.

7. The other contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the respondents ought to have taken objections with regard to the admissibility, proof