THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3109 OF 2023

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.298 of 2023 in O.S.No.67 of

2010.

2. I.A.No.298 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff therein under Order XIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking the Court to reject and demark Exs.B15 and B46 and make an endorsement on the said documents that the same are fake documents and cannot be considered in evidence and he filed a petition stating that after the evidence of the petitioner was closed in the year, 2012, the respondents/defendants dragged the matter. Defendant No.2 was examined and marked the said documents in the year, 2017. At that time, the tainted simple sale deed was referred for marking and the Court was not inclined to mark the same. Thereafter the respondents hired fake witness to show quantity and not quality. At the stage of arguments also, to fill up the lacunae, as an after-thought, the defendants created fake certified copies without original file in the Tahsildar office concerned and got marked simple sale deed as Ex.B46, which is not visible and not readable and also some fake photostat copies of land tax receipts as Ex.B15. To prove that the said documents are fake certified copies, the petitioner made an application before the Tahsildar, Weepangandla Mandal under Right to Information Act on 03.02.2023 to furnish the particulars of file No.B/ROR/9062/98 as to how many papers in the said file are originals and how many papers are photostat copies and also to give description of each paper, whether it is original or photostat copy. The Nayab Tahsildar, Weepangandla Mandal addressed a letter on 08.02.2023 to the Nayab Tahsildar, Pangal Mandal stating that the said file is not available in the office of Weepangandla and requested to give the information by annexing copy of the application. The Nayab Tahsildar, Pangal Mandal addressed a letter on 08.03.2023 to Nayab Tahsildar, Weepangandla Mandal stating that the alleged file is not available in their office. The said information is marked before the trial Court. Thereafter the respondents/defendants filed a petition to call for the original file No.B/ROR/9062/98 from the Tahsildar, Weepangandla Mandal and the same was allowed. The authorities submitted the said file and on verification of the said file, it is found that the alleged tainted simple sale deed is not at all original and it is only a photostat copy and it is not visible and readable. The land tax receipts which are marked as Ex.B15, before the trial Court are also found in photostat copies in the above file. The defendants got marked Exs.B46 and B15 in a fraudulent manner. Therefore the said documents are liable to be demarked.

3. The respondents therein filed counter opposing the petition stating that already the documents were marked before this Court and instead of submitting the arguments, the petitioner has filed this application unnecessarily without any valid ground and reason. When the petitioner- plaintiff raised objection in the year, 2017 stating that the simple sale deed was true copy and not a certified copy, they obtained certified copies of the documents which are later marked on their behalf and further denied that they created fake certified copies without original file in the Tahsildar’s office concerned and got marked them as Exs.B15 to B46. They are ready to read out the averments of the simple sale deed and that the simple sale deed was already regularised to the extent of half share of the land shown in the name of Kyatham Papaiah, Mala Suguru, father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and Kyatham Papaiah purchased the land shown in the simple sale deed jointly. The mutation proceedings vide file No.B/ROR/9062/98 stand good till this date. It is further stated that they obtained certified copies from the said file for the best reasons known to the petitioner/plaintiff, who is trying his level best to misp