HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.695 OF 2024

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order, dated 14.11.2023, passed in I.A.No.554 of 2023 in O.S.No.178 of 2012 (Old O.S.No.701 of 2008) on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District, this Civil Revision Petition is filed by revision petitioner/plaintiff.

2. Heard Mr. Narendar Jalli, learned Senior Counsel for revision petitioner/plaintiff and Mr. K.Laxmi Manohar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1.

3. Brief facts of the case:

Civil revision petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.178 of

2012 (Old O.S.No.701 of 2008), said suit is filed seeking the following relief(s): (i) to declare the plaintiff as owner and possessor of suit property, i.e., H.No.4-2-968 admeasuring 200 sq. yards located in Sy.No.44, Plot No.8 in Vikarabad Municipal Limits, R.R. District (ii) to restrain the defendant No.1 and his men from interfering into the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit property (iii)

cancel the judgment and decree in O.S.No.53 of 2004, dated 18.03.2005, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad and consequently to cancel the sale deed No.5914/05 executed in pursuance of said decree. Trial of the suit commenced and is at the stage of cross-

examination.

4. I.A.No.504 of 2023 is filed by respondent No.1 herein (i.e., defendant No.1 in the suit) under Section 65 of Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act, 1872’) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to receive the following documents:

1. Photocopy of certified copy of written statement of S.Vidya Sagar in O.S.No.53 of 2001, and

2. Photocopy of certified copy of dismissal order in O.S.No.53 of 2001 in the above suit and to mark on behalf of the petitioner (and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice).

5. Respondent No.1 herein (i.e., defendant No.1 in the suit) filed an affidavit vide I.A.No.554 of 2023 in O.S.No.178 of 2012, the relevant portion is as follows:

“That the vendor of the respondent No.1/plaintiff has field O.S.No.53 of 2001 for the relief of injunction simplicitor against Sangram Vidya Sagar on the file of the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad in which S.Vidya Sagar filed written statement and the suit was dismissed as abated. I have obtained the certified copies of the written statement of Vidya Sagar and dismissal order but in recent shifting of my office from Kanylal Bagh to Yennepally the above said documents are misplaced and could not be traced out inspite of my best efforts as such I have filed C.A.No.---- of 2023 (not mentioned) but not issued the CC of WS and dismissal order in O.S.No.53 of 2001 as not traced out the record as such I am filing the photo copy of CC of written statement of Vidya Sagar in O.S.No.53 of 2001 and photo copy of CC of dismissal order in O.S.No.53 of 2001 as secondary evidence in view of above circumstances and the said documents area admitted documents by other side and own documents of respondent/plaintiff hence no prejudice would be caused to his and if the said documents are not received as secondary evidence for marking by condoning delay an irreparable injury would be caused to me resulting in miscarriage of justice.”

6. A counter affidavit was filed by the civil revision petitioner herein (i.e., plaintiff in the suit). At paragraph No.5 of the counter, it was stated as follows: “I submit I.A.No. 2023 filed under Sec.65 of Indian Evidence Act, I am to submit that the petitioner has not made out any case as contemplated under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, as no grounds were made out under Sec.65 of the Act. Further the petitioner has not made out any case U/s 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, and no foundation was laid for treating the xerox copies of the so called dismissal orders as secondary evidence. The allegation that the certified copies misplaced and cannot be traced is unbelievable. Further the petitioner failed to quote the copy application No.2023 a