THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1614 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner – respondent –

defendant No.3 (died) represented by her legal representatives – petitioners 2 and 3 (who were brought on record as per the orders in I.A.No.3 of 2025 dated 01.05.2025) aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.278 of 2018 in O.S.No.4 of 2009 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, Rangareddy District.

2. I.A.No.278 of 2018 is filed by the respondent No.1 – petitioner – plaintiff under Section 65(c) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to lead secondary evidence by producing photocopy of the acknowledgement of the sale consideration of the suit house by defendants 1 and 2, dated 12.02.2008.

3. The said petition was allowed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pargi at Rangareddy District on 03.04.2019.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner - respondent – defendant No.3 preferred this revision.

5. Heard Sri Vijay Ashrith, learned counsel representing Sri V.Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioners on record and Sri P.D.Tenneti, learned counsel representing Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – plaintiff on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial court passed the impugned order erroneously on conjectures. Without the respondent No.1 – plaintiff substantiating his claim, the trial court ought not to have allowed the petition by referring to other documents and pleadings in the plaint while adjudicating a petition under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was an illegal order and relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manisha Mahendra Gala and Others v. Shalini Bhagwan Avartramani and Others

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – plaintiff on the other hand contended that the respondent No.1 – plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract. The defendants 1 and 2 sold the suit property to the plaintiff and received the sale consideration on different occasions and passed receipts and acknowledgments admitting the receipt of the sale consideration from time to time in favor of the plaintiff. One such acknowledgment passed by defendants 1 and 2 dated 12.02.2008 admitting the receipt of Rs.45,000/- by each of them was lost in the ruckus created by the defendants and their henchmen. Inspite of diligent search, the plaintiff could not trace it out and lost it forever. However, the respondent No.1 – plaintiff was in possession of a photocopy of it and as such filed the petition seeking permission to lead secondary evidence of the transaction dated 12.02.2008. The trial court on considering that the respondent No.1 – plaintiff had stated about the loss of the said document in his plaint itself and that the petitioner had also filed other receipts, which were original and stamped, allowed the petition. There was no illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial court to set aside the same and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

8. Perused the record.

9. The respondent No.1 – plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract basing on an oral agreement to purchase the suit schedule property, which was a residential house for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. As per the plaint, the plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs.90,000/- to defendants 1 and 2 on different occasions ranging from 1997 to 2008 towards part payment of the sale consideration, but the defendants 1 and 2 sold the property to defendant No.3. The plaintiff further stated in his plaint that the defendant No.3 colluded with defendants 1 and 2 and demolished the house bearing No.3-16, an adjoining house of the schedule property which also belonged to him and stole the building material and other material kept in it. On coming to know about the highhanded actions of the defendants and their henchmen, the plaintiff rushed to th