THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1439 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in O.S. No.158 of 2019 dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam (for short ‘Trial Court’).

2. The petitioner herein is plaintiff and respondents herein as defendants in the suit in O.S. No.158 of 2019. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as in O.S. No.158 of

2019.

3. The suit in O.S. No.158 of 2019 was filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession, and for consequential reliefs in respect of the suit schedule property. I.A. No.2 of 2025 is filed by the plaintiff under Order XIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) in O.S. No.158 of 2019 to receive the documents which were not filed at the time of filing of suit. It is stated that plaintiff filed photostat copies of pattadar pass books and other documents before the Trial Court, as he could not get certified copies of the same.

The List of Documents which he intended to file are:

(i) Certified Copy of Pattadar Passbook bearing No.U-

218457 of Mrs. Jagarlamudi Syamala Devi, dated

29.12.2017.

(ii) Certified Copy of statement and map showing the particulars of land acquisition from Mrs. Jagarlamudi Syamala Devi in Survey No.1/1/14 to an extent of Acs.0-38 ¼ guntas for excavation of NSP Canal, dated

29.12.2017.

(iii) Color Photographs (3) Numbers along with CD showing the falling of Mango Trees in the suit schedule property.

4. The defendants opposed the said application contending that the factum of the plaintiff filing the photostat copies means that originals were in his custody, and he possessed originals at the time of institution of suit, thus, the filing of certified copies by a separate application for receiving and marking them as exhibits is not permissible. The pattadar passbook is not attested by the competent authority. It cannot be said that it is certified copy of original document. In fact, the original is with the Mrs. Jagarlamudi Syamala Devi, who is the vendor of the plaintiff, and the certified copy was issued by the office of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (IPT & Railways) Khammam, in not valid in law.

5. The Trial Court on considering the contentions of the parties passed order dated 04.03.2025 dismissing the I.A. No.2 of 2025 in O.S. No.158 of 2019. The Trial Court recorded that Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC deals with the production of original documents at or before the settlement of issues. However, now the suit is coming for marking of documents by the plaintiff, and at this stage, the plaintiff ought to have filed interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC. The plaintiff only prayed to receive document Nos.1 to 3, however, list of documents shows as five (5). Contrary to same, there are six (6) documents annexed to the application. Further, it is nowhere mentioned in the affidavit to receive 4^th and 5^th documents. Even, if the application is allowed, only document Nos.1 to 3 will be received.

6. Further, the Trial Court recorded that document No.1, i.e., attested copy of pattadar passbook of Mrs. Jagarlamudi Shyamala Devi, is attested by the Special Naib-Tahsildar, in the office of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Khammam. The plaintiff also filed attested copy of title deed of Mrs. Jagarlamudi Shayamala Devi without mentioning about the same in the affidavit. The Trial Court also recorded that as per the law, certified copy or attested copy is issued when the authority is in possession of the same. Admittedly, the Naib Tahsildar, in the office of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Khammam, is not in possession of the pattadar passbook or title deed of Mrs. Jagarlamudi Syamala Devi, as the said authority only issues land acquisition proceedings for which the o