ORDER _-----.-_-

h--

I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY CRP No.2678 of 2019 ORDf,R:

. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition I assailing the order and decree dated 14.10.2019 passed in IA No.245 of 2019 in OS No. 111 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parkla, Warangal District.

?. lA No.245 of 2019 was tlled under Order-Xlll' Rule-3 read withSectionl5lolC.P.C.bythepetitioner/plaintitTtodeexhibit/

ol demark the Ex.B.l8 stating that it is a xerox copy application submitted to the Tahsildar under Right to, Information Act by the respondent/defendant on 27.09.2013, which is irrelevant document and as per Order-XIII, Rule-3 CPC, the Court may at any stage of the suit rej ect any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds for such rejection' The learned counsel for the petitioner aiso relied upon the principles laid by this Court in Abttul Rafi @Abdut Rawoof v' Venkataish (died) by ll?sr' In that case, a petition was filed for demarking the document and this Court has held that the trial Court lailed to decide the objection raised by the petitioner and proceeded to receive in evidence and accordingly document was ordered to be deexhibited'

I zo rg (+) eLo als (rs)

CRP No.2678 of20l9

3.

But, in the case on hand, from the rnaterial available on record, the petitioner/plaintiff did not raise any objection, accordingly it was rnarked as Ex.B.18. 56q,, the suit is posted lor cross-examination ol DW. 1. At this stage, the present application was filed before the Court below for deexhibiting the said document, which is a xerox copy of application submitted by the defendant to the Tahsildar under Right to Information Act on 27 .09 .201 3. The original suit is filed for perpetual injr-rnction by the plaintiff against the defendant. Undisputedly, they are real brothers and parlition u,as effected betu'een the parties. The plaintiff djd not raise any ob.iection for markir.rg thc said clocr-Lment though it is a photostat copy of application submitted by the det-endant under RTI Act to the Tahsildar.

4.

Order-XIII, Rule-3 CPC envisages that the Court rnay at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible recording the grounds for such rejection.

5.

This Court in Abdul Rafi's case (1 supra) relied by the leamed counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in RV.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Visweswaraswamy and V.P, Tempte and snother2 and in Shalimar Chemicol LYorks Limilett v. Surendro Oil md Dol Miltsl held that marking of thc documents by the trial Courr subject to objections did not fulfil the conditions under Section 66 of Evidence Act and

2 zooa 1rl ALD r8 (sc)

- 3 zoro (o) eLo ro (sc)

f-"

CRP No.267E of20l9 / photocopy of document received without deciding the objection or without hearing other side is not acceptable.

6.

The facts of the present case are quite distinct. In the present case, Ex.B.l8 is not a suit document. It is only photo copy of an application submitted by the respondent to the Tahsildar under Right to Information Act seeking certain infonnation relating to the title deed issued in favour of the plaintiff. The original of said application dated 27.09.201 3 is submitted to the Tahsildar by retaining the photo copy of the same with the respondent.

7. It is pertinent to note that the respdndent/defendant has filed written statement in the original suit on 03.06.2013 wherein at para-5 it is categoricaliy stated that the passbook and title deed are not supported by any legal evidence and that they are brought into existence in collusion with the revenue people and liable to be cancelled.

8.

Ex.B.l8 is dated 27.09.2013 and it is tlled befbre the Tahsildar seeking the information as ro the title of the plaintiff under Right to Information Act subsequent to the filing of written statement on 03.06.2013, accordingly it could not be fi