THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3796 OF 2025

ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Srinivas Chitturu, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. B.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Pearl Law Associates on behalf of the respondents and perused the records.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (‘for short ‘the Trial Court’), in I.A.No.4081 of 2025 in O.S.No.188 of 2017.

3. The petitioners before this Court are the defendants before the Trial Court.

4. The Suit has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for recovery of the fixed deposits made by the plaintiffs, which were alleged to have been fraudulently permitted to be withdrawn by third parties.

5. In the course of the trial, the petitioners-Bank of Baroda have moved a petition under Section 60(c) of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short ‘the 2023 Act’), seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of around 17 documents, the details of which were annexed along with the said petition.

6. The Trial Court vide the impugned order has rejected the same primarily on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the petitioners/defendants have not taken such a plea in the Written Statement that they have filed, and secondly, the petitioners have not been able to satisfy the Court so far as the requirement under Section 60(c) of the 2023 Act is concerned.

7. Today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in the course of the hearing, drew the Court through the pleadings in the Written Statement, wherein, in paragraph

12, it reads thus:

“It is submitted that the with reference to the allegations in para 8 and 9 of the plaint that the corporation has realized only 19.00 crores out of 59.01 crores are misconceived and the defendants are not liable for any amount and deny all the averments in the plaint and deny the alleged claim in the suit. The allegations that the defendants in fact sent a reply on 2.5.2013 denying and mentioning all the facts referred in this affidavit and in spite of the same on the very same allegations vexatious summary suit is filed by the Corporation without even giving any reply to the Reply Notice dt. 2.5.2013 stating that there is no evidence in the suit which is incorrect. It is submitted that the Defendant has already filed the relevant documents in support of its contentions along with an application for granting leave to defend the Suit in I.A.No.2943 of 2017 and prays the Hon’ble Court to read the said documents as part and parcel of this written statement.”

8. This, according to the petitioners, was in respect of the very same documents which they intend to use as secondary evidence now through the I.A.No.4081 of 2025.

9. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that these are the documents whose original copies were seized by the Police Authorities and at least a few of them are also part of the chargesheet. Therefore, since the petitioners do not have the originals and the originals are with the Police Authorities and the concerned Magistrate seized of the Criminal Case, the Court should not have rejected the case outright, but, rather permitted them to produce secondary evidence in respect of this matter.

10. During the course of the hearing today, it has been learnt that the documents mentioned at Sl.Nos.2 to 7, 9, 10 and 13 are the only documents, which are part of the chargesheet and as regards the other documents are concerned, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that though they have been seized by the Police Authorities, they have not been made part of the chargesheet.

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners herein in the Written Statement have not taken a categorical stand in respect of the non-