Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17992
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
Petitioner – Appellant
Versus
Respondents – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1439 OF 2025 | O.S. No.158 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rama Sharana Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Kiran Reddy
Trial Court must only assess document submission, not validity; certified copies require original documents for acceptance.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XIII Rule 1 - Application for receiving documents - Petitioner sought to introduce certified copies after failing to submit original documents in suit - Defendants opposed citing lack of original custody - Trial Court held that attested copies were invalid as not issued by competent authority. (Paras 5-11)
(B) Jurisdiction - Limits of Trial Court in assessing document validity during the receiving stage - The Trial Court exceeded its authority by evaluating document authenticity rather than merely receiving documents. (Paras 7-11)
Facts of the case:
ACivil Revision Petition was filed to challenge the dismissal of an application to receive documents not filed at the commencement of litigation. The plaintiff contended their documents were vital for establishing ownership and possession.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the documents in question were not validly attested and upheld the Trial Court’s discretion in refusing to accept them.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for receipt of documents based on their validity?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Trial Court was correct in stating that certified copies must be based on original documents, holding that documents submitted for reception should not be closely scrutinized.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition to set aside a trial court order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. opposition to document submission citing attestation issues. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding legal errors in lower court's decision. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's examination of document certification and authority. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in O.S. No.158 of 2019 dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam (for short ‘Trial Court’).
2. The petitioner herein is plaintiff and respondents herein as defendants in the suit in O.S. No.158 of 2019. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as in O.S. No.158 of
2019.
3. The suit in O.S. No.158 of 2019 was filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession, and for consequential reliefs in respect of the suit schedule property. I.A. No.2 of 2025 is filed by the plaintiff under Order XIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (for short ‘ CPC ’) in O.S. No.158 of 2019 to receive the documents which were not filed at the time of filing of suit. It is stated that plaintiff filed photostat copies of pattadar pass books and other documents before the Trial Court, as he could not get certified copies of the same.
The List of Documents which he intended to file are:
(i) Certified Copy of Pattadar Passbook bearing No.U-
218457 of Mrs. Jagarlamudi Syamala Devi, dated
29.12.2017.
(ii) Certified Copy of statement and map showing the particulars of land acquisition from Mrs. Jagarlamudi Syamala Devi in Survey No.1/1/14 to an extent of Acs.0-38 ¼ guntas for excavation of NSP Canal, dated
29.12.2017.
(iii) Color Photographs (3) Numbers along with CD showing the falling of Mango Trees in the suit schedule property.
4. The defendants opposed the said application contending that the factum of the plaintiff filing the photostat copies means that originals were in his custody, and he possessed originals at the time of institution of suit, thus, the filing of certified copies by a separate application for receiving and marking them as exhibits is not permissible. The pattadar passbook is not attested by the competent authority. It cannot be said that it is certified copy of original document. In fact, the original is with the Mrs. Jagarlamudi Syamala Devi, who is the vendor of the plaintiff, and the certified copy was issued by the office of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (IPT & Railways) Khammam, in not valid in law.
5. The Trial Court on considering the contentions of the parties passed order dated 04.03.2025 dismissing the I.A. No.2 of 2025 in O.S. No.158 of 2019. The Trial Court recorded that Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC deals with the production of original documents at or before the settlement of issues. However, now the suit is coming for marking of documents by the plaintiff, and at this stage, the plaintiff ought to have filed interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC . The plaintiff only prayed to receive document Nos.1 to 3, however, list of documents shows as five (5). Contrary to same, there are six (6) documents annexed to the application. Further, it is nowhere mentioned in the affidavit to receive 4th and 5th documents. Even, if the application is allowed, only document Nos.1 to 3 will be received.
6. Further, the Trial Court recorded that document No.1, i.e., attested copy of pattadar passbook of Mrs. Jagarlamudi Shyamala Devi, is attested by the Special Naib-Tahsildar, in the office of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Khammam. The plaintiff also filed attested copy of title deed of Mrs. Jagarlamudi Shayamala Devi without mentioning about the same in the affidavit. The Trial Court also recorded that as per the law, certified copy or attested copy is issued when the authority is in possession of the same. Admittedly, the Naib Tahsildar, in the o
