THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.79 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri T. Sharath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.

Surender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.322 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Satupally (‘trial Court’).

3. The brief facts of the case are that I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.322 of 2016 was filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court under Order XVI Rules 6 and 7 read with Section 151 of CPC, with a prayer to issue summons to Sub-Registrar, Wyra, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District, to produce the Register/Book containing entries of Mortgage Deed bearing document No.2410 of 2006, dated 31.10.2006 and to give evidence pertaining to the said Mortgage Deed, its registration and recitals etc,. The said petition was filed in a suit filed seeking preliminary decree against the respondents herein pertaining to the suit schedule property on the basis of original Mortgage Deed, dated 31.10.2006. The said Mortgage Deed was denied by the defendants/respondents and therefore, there was need to prove the execution of the said Mortgage Deed and its contents by examining either the scribe or attestor or Registrar of Sub-Registrar Office, who registered the said document. The attestors are not available and though, the scribe is available, he is abroad and therefore, cannot be summoned. Therefore, the revision petitioner filed the I.A. under revision to summon the Sub-Registrar, Wyra, for proving the said Mortgage Deed. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the scribe is very much available and he can be examined through video conferencing or by way of recording the evidence online. It is held that the Sub-Registrar is a busy person and he cannot be summoned casually except in compelling situations. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the attestors are not available and the scribe is also not available, as he is not in the country and therefore, there is no option, but to summon the Sub-Registrar, Wyra.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 argued that the trial Court has considered the situation and held that the scribe is available and therefore, he can be examined through video conferencing or online as is done in certain cases following the circulars issued by this Court from time to time.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions, it is to be seen that proving of genuineness of original Mortgage Deed requires original to be confronted to the scribe and such confrontation is not possible through video conferencing. At best, question and answers can be recorded through video conferencing, but examining the genuineness of documents requires confrontation of original document to the witness which cannot be done through video conferencing or online recording process. When the attestors and scribe are not available there is no option, but to summon the Sub-Registrar, Wyra, to produce the details with regard to execution of Mortgage Deed together with thumb impressions/signatures of the persons, who have executed the said document, to enable the revision petitioner to prove his case. In compelling circumstances, there is a need to summon the Sub-Registrar, Wyra, and the same is not unjust as held by the trial Court. The Registrar as held by the trial Court is not authority to prove the genuineness of contents of the Mortgage Deed. However, he is competent to depose about its registration and is competent to produce the thumb impressions/signatures of the signatories to the Mortgage Deed i.e., signatures/thumb impressions of defendants/respondents, which are available in the Sub-Registrar office Register/Book can come to the aid of the revision petitioner in proving the genuineness or otherwise of the Ex.A-

1 Mortgage D