IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3952 of 2024 THE 16^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between:

Kante Manamma.

…Petitioner AND Majjiga Jitendar and 12 others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

None for the respondents. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (‘trial Court’) in I.A.No.1009 of 2024 in O.S.No.704 of 2013, wherein a petition filed under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC to summon the Assistant Director, Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratories, Red Hills, Hyderabad, who issued forensic report in File No.DOC/210/2021, dated 29.11.2021 (‘FSL report’), has been dismissed.

3. The petitioner herein filed suit in O.S.No.704 of 2013 on the file of the trial Court seeking relief of declaration of ROR proceedings dated 17.06.2006 in File No.ROR/B/1868/2006 as null and void, to register the name of the petitioner herein by deleting the name of respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein in respect of the suit schedule property in ROR records, to issue decree of demolition of shed, recovery of possession, preliminary decree of partition and for mense profits. The said suit was at the stage of arguments and at that stage, the petitioner herein learned about the FSL report and other original documents pending in Crime No.809 of 2022 on the file of the II Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner intends to demonstrate before the trial Court that the documents which were produced for entering the names of the respondents in ROR record are forged documents. To prove the same, the FSL report is a necessary document.

4. While so, the respondents opposed the I.A. under revision alleging that FSL report which is filed in criminal proceedings is subject to trial and report of criminal proceedings does not bind the parties in a civil suit.

5. The learned trial Court after considering the case of both the parties held that the FSL report has not attained finality and it is subject to trial and the petitioner has filed I.A. under revision only to drag on the matter.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is essential that the FSL report be marked in evidence on behalf of the petitioner to prove that on the basis of forged documents the Tahsildar has malafidely deleted the name of the petitioner from ROR records and entered the names of the respondents. It is further submitted that there is no occasion for the petitioner to file the FSL report at the time of recording of the petitioner’s evidence as the said report was submitted to the criminal Court on 29.11.2021. Immediately after learning about the FSL report, the petitioner has sought for certified copies and produced the same before the trial Court and said documents have been received. The document which is prepared by the forensic expert is to be marked through the person, who authored the same and as such there is need to summon the Assistant Director, Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad and to mark the said document. Hence, prayed to allow the present revision.

7. The FSL report once issued is a document that can be considered and its validity one way or other is not affected by the finding of the criminal Court. The criminal Court may peruse the FSL report for the purpose of ascertaining commission of a crime and whereas the same report may be perused by the civil Court for the purpose of ascertaining genuineness of document produced before it. Except for examining the expert, who authored the report, no further certification or validation is required for the FSL report to be considered. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the view expressed by the trial Court th