THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2052 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri N.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms T.Ravi Kanth Shivani, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.05.2025 in I.A.No.103 of 2025 in FCOP.No.149 of 2024, passed by learned Judge Family Court-Cum-II Additional District Judge at Hanumakonda.

3. The Petitioner has filed the aforesaid FCOP.No.149 of 2024 against the respondent herein for annulment of marriage. The said OP is coming for trail. The petitioner herein has filed two applications in FCOP i.e., I.A.No.103 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC to receive certain documents, which are mentioned in the affidavit specifically and I.A.No.104 of 2025 under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act to permit her to lead secondary evidence for the purpose of marking downloaded whats-app messages (text screenshots) and photostat copies and pen drives etc.

Vide separate orders both dated 26.05.2025, learned trail Court dismissed the said applications.

4. It is relevant to note that petitioner herein has filed present Revision challenging the order dated 26.05.2025 in I.A.No.103 of 2025 and she did not file any Revision challenging the order dated 26.05.2025 in I.A.No.104 of

2025.

5. Mr.Nadipally Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is going to challenge the said order dated 26.05.2025 in I.A.No.104 of 2025.

6. Petitioner has filed I.A No.103 of 2025 to receive the following documents.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of said I.A., petitioner has specifically stated that said documents are relevant and non filing of the said documents along with FCOP is neither intentional nor willful.

8. Respondent has filed counter opposing the said application contending that petitioner has not mentioned the reasons for receiving the said applications and also in whose possession the said documents are, in terms of Order VII Rule 14 CPC and she has not mentioned the reasons for not filing the said documents along with the FCOP. Vide impugned order dated 26.05.2024, learned Family Court dismissed the said application holding that the trial Court has already dismissed I.A.No.104 of 2025. Therefore, no purpose will be served by allowing I.A.No.103 of 2025.

9. Perusal of the order dated 26.05.2025 in I.A.No.104 of 2025 would reveal that learned trial Court has dismissed the said application holding that petitioner herein failed to comply with Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. She sought permission to receive the electronic records i.e., photostat copies of text messages etc. To receive the said electronic records, she has to file certificate mentioned under Section 65-B (4) of Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of such certificate, secondary evidence of electronic records/computer output is inadmissible in evidence.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no need of submitting certificate along with the application under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. He has also placed reliance on several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and different High Courts. However, he has to place reliance on the principle laid down in the said judgments while challenging the order dated 26.05.2025 in I.A No.104 of 2025.

11. As discussed supra, petitioner herein has filed the aforesaid I.A.No.103 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC. Order VII of CPC deals with the plaint and Rule 14 with production of relevant documents by a plaintiff.

12. The said provision is extracted below:

“Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) mandates that a plaintiff suing on a document in their possession must produce it with the plaint and deliver it for filing, while plaintiffs relying on other documents as evidence must list them in a list annexed to the plaint. Any document that is not produced or listed without court leave cannot be