THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.375 and 379 of 2025

COMMON ORDER :

Since the issue arising in the instant Civil Revision Petitions and the parties thereto are same, the Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr.B. Raveendra Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 / defendant No.1.

3. Civil Revision Petition No.375 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order dated 17.12.2024 in I.A.No.764 of 2023 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally; and Civil Revision Petition No.379 of 2025 is filed by the same petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order dated 17.12.2024 in I.A.No.887 of 2024 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally (for short, ‘the impugned Common Order’).

4. For convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their array / status before the Trial Court.

5. Initially, the suit O.S.No.1041 of 2022 (Old Nos. O.S.No.943 of 2021 and 1697 of 2011) was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff herein under Section 26 read with Order VII Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Order XXXIV Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court seeking for grant of perpetual injunction by restraining the respondents / defendants herein, their agents, henchmen or anyone claiming through them from interfering with the petitioner / plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, or claiming through them from alienating, creating any charge, mortgage in respect of the suit schedule property by way of permanent injunction.

6. Pending suit, respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 had filed I.A.No.764 of 2023 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court for rejection of the following documents, viz., (a) Photocopy of the agreement of sale dated 07.03.1996; (b) Photocopy of the agreement of sale dated 22.06.1998; (c) Photocopy of the agreement of sale dated 30.01.2009;

(d) Photocopy of the agreement of sale dated 11.08.1978;

(e) Photocopy of the agreement of renewal;

(f) Photographs relied upon by the petitioner/plaintiff; &

(g) Self-serving lay-out sketch.

7. Pending suit, the petitioner / plaintiff filed I.A.No.887 of 2024 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 under Order 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 15 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to permit the petitioner / plaintiff to lead secondary evidence.

8. Vide the impugned common order, the Trial Court, after hearing both sides, allowed I.A.No.764 of 2023 in O.S.No.1041 of

2022 and dismissed I.A.No.887 of 2024 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022.

9. Aggrieved, the instant Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that the documents on which the petitioner want to lead secondary evidence, were already marked as exhibits; at the time of marking of the documents, no objection was raised by the respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 herein; and therefore, the respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 cannot be now permitted to raise objection under Order XIII Rule 3.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the I.A.No.764 of 2023 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022, filed by the respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 is hit by the doctrine of estoppel. According to him, the documents which were sought to be marked were one which have been obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and these documents were duly stamped by the Public Information Officer, and that they have also been held to be valid and legal documents even under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 are genuine, authentic and val