THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2528 and 2531 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P.No.2528 of 2025 is filed by revision petitioner/respondent No.1/plaintiff aggrieved by the order, dated 09.06.2025, passed in I.A.No.41 of 2025 in O.S.No.67 of 2010 by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

2. C.R.P.No.2531 of 2025 is filed by revision petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 09.06.2025, passed in I.A.No.425 of 2024 in O.S.No.67 of 2010 by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

3. Heard Mr. S.S.R.Murthy, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Mr. N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondents in both the civil revision petitions.

4. Both the civil revision petitions arise out of the same issue/matter, they are being heard together.

5. I.A.No.41 of 2025 in O.S.No.67 of 2010 was filed by defendants/respondents herein, seeking to re-open the suit for the purpose of marking the documents i.e., ROR file in support of their claim for adjudication of the suit.

6. Earlier C.R.P.No.3109 of 2023 came to be filed before this Court and a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 19.02.2024 dismissed the revision petition. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:

“8. Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P.Temple (AIR 2003 SC 4548), observed that the objection as to admissibility of the documents may be classified into two classes, i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient.

9. The Apex Court also observed as under:-

“In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as ‘an exhibit’, an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit.”

10. In the present case it falls under first case where the document itself is inadmissible, therefore it can be excluded at any stage of the suit as documents in present case are inadmissible. Admittedly these documents are certified copies of photostat copies, as such, the trial Court rightly demarked the same. There is no illegality in the order of the lower Court and there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. If really original documents are available in the custody of authorities they can request the Court to summon the authority to prove the same.”

7. Subsequently, two more C.R.Ps bearing Nos.2211 and 2139 of 2024 came to be filed and this Court by common order dated 04.09.2024 disposed of the revision petitions. The following is the relevant portion of the order:

“10. Revision petitioners filed I.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2024 for summoning the concerned officials at the stage of arguments seeking their presence to confront the xerox copies of certified copies (which were demarked Exs.B46 and B15). It is recorded by the court in the order is as follows:

“The Tahasildar, Weepangandla even failed to produce the file pertaining to issuance of certified copies of the sale deed and the tax receipts. Therefore, now summoning of the officials who allegedly issued the certified copies of the documents does not serve any purpose. Moreover, when the original documents are not available anywhere, and even the applicant himself i.e., Kyatham Papaiah, had not produced the original documents before the Tahasildar concerned at the time of regular