THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY

CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.3884 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Mr. R.Pavan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the docket order dated 15.10.2025, whereby the Copy Application i.e. C.A.No.21958 of 2025, seeking for a certified copy of the Vakalatnama filed in O.S.No.1549 of 2019 on behalf of the plaintiff was returned by the Central Copying Section of the City Civil Court

at Hyderabad.

3. The said application was returned as the document does not fall under Rule 188(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that his application ought to have been considered to be one under Rule 188(1) of the

Civil Rules of Practice.

4. For ready reference, Rule 188(1) and 188(2) of the Civil

Rules of Practice are reproduced hereunder, viz.,

“188. Persons entitled to apply for copies:-

(1) Any party to a suit or proceeding shall be entitled to obtain copies of judgments, decrees, or orders made or of any documents exhibited in such suit or proceeding on payment of charges in the manner prescribed under these rules.

(2) Any person who is not a party to a suit or proceeding requiring, copies of judgments, decrees or orders made or of any documents exhibited in such suit or proceedings may apply to the court for grant of such copies by duly stamped petition supported by an affidavit stating the purpose for which the copy is required.

Provided that, in cases of doubt whether, the copy applied for should be furnished, the application shall be placed before the judge for his decision. If the application is refused by the Judge it shall be returned to the applicant with the order of Judge endorsed on it.”

5. In the instant case, the document of which a certified copy was sought for by the petitioner is admittedly the Vakalatnama executed by the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. Vakalatnama is not reflected to be one of the documents under Rule 188(1) and Rule 188(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice which could be considered for grant of certified copy. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 189 of the Civil Rules of Practice, but the said Rule also does not speak of Vakalatnama to be one of the documents of which certified copy can be issued.

6. So far as the application for certified copy is concerned, the same has to meet the requirements mentioned in Rule 188(1) and Rule 188(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice. The said Rules reproduced in the preceding paragraphs specifically identifies the nature of documents of which certified copies can be obtained. Vakalatnama is not one which is envisaged as a document of which certified copy can be given. In view of the same, this Court is of the firm view that the document of which certified copy has been sought for does not fall within the category of documents reflected in Rule 188(1) and Rule 188(2). Merely because the Vakalatnama has not been reflected under Rule 189 by itself would not lead to an inference that Vakalatnama is one of the documents of which certified copy can be granted.

7. In the opinion of this Court, rejection of the C.A.No.21958 of 2025 does not any warrant interference and the instant Civil Revision Petition thus fails and is accordingly rejected.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

_____________ P.SAM KOSHY, J Date: 21.11.2025 GSD