HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2238 of 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the Order dated 16.04.2024 in I.A.No.2045 of 2023 in O.S.No.279 of 2020, passed by the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the application filed by the petitioners, under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of CPC, to receive documents, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Thomas Lloyed, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri G.Hemachalam, learned counsel for respondents.

3. The revision petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 4, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are plaintiffs and respondent No.5 is defendant No.5 in the suit.

4. Brief facts of the case which led to filing of the present revision petition are that respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed a suit vide O.S.No.279 of 2019, against the petitioners and respondent No.5, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property; that revision petitioners entered appearance and filed their written statement; that pending adjudication of the suit, the revision petitioners filed two applications vide I.A.Nos.2045 and 2046 of 2023, one to receive the documents, viz., certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No.408 of 1972 dated 14.02.1972, certified copy of Gift Deed bearing document No.2362 of 2022 dated 21.11.2022, Encumbrance Certificate and Property Tax Receipt and another to mark the said documents as secondary evidence. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed counter resisting the said application.

5. The trial Court, on due consideration of the pleadings and contentions put forth by both the parties, dismissed the application vide impugned Order dated 16.04.2024, with an observation that petitioners failed to give any explanation for not producing the original documents and also failed to lay any foundation in their written statement for producing certified copies. The trial Court has also observed that petitioners failed to satisfy the requirement under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, before seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 4 submitted that revision petitioners have raised loan by pledging the original documents, due to which, they were unable to file the original documents along with their written statement before the trial Court. He further submitted that petitioners have categorically mentioned about the said documents in their written statement, basing on which they are claiming title over the suit schedule property and hence, they are very crucial for proper adjudication of the case, however, the trial Court, without properly appreciating all these aspects, dismissed the application and therefore, he prayed to allow the present Revision Petition.

7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs submitted that petitioners failed to file certified copies along with their written statement and did not give cogent and plausible reasons for filing the said documents at belated stage. He further submitted that petitioners stated that they raised loan by pledging the original documents for the first time in the revision petition and did not give any explanation for the delay in filing the documents before the trial Court and therefore, the revision petitioners are not entitled to relief sought for and accordingly, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Apropos the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, the issue that requires to be adjudicated in this Revision is whether the certified copies of the aforesaid documents are admissible in evidence and whether they can be marked as secondary evidence.

9. For adjudicating the said issue, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Appaiya Vs.

Andimuthu @ Thangapandi and others,1 wherein when a similar issue fell for consideration, it was observed and held as hereunder:

“…The hollowness and unsu