THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3771 of 2023

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 10.10.2023 in I.A. No. 841 of 2022 in O.S. No. 501 of 2022 passed by the I Additional District Judge Medchal Malkajgiri at Kushaiguda.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in the above Suit.

3. The respondent Nos.1 to 16 herein filed the above suit for declaration to declare the ex-parte decree dated 21.01.2011 passed in O.S. No. 100 of 2010 on the file of District Judge, Ranga Reddy district as null and void and not binding, and also for declaration and consequential injunction, as plaintiffs vide O.S. No. 501 of

2022 under Order VII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 26 of CPC.

4. The petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 4 herein filed the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 841 of 2022 in O.S. No. 501 of 2022 under Section 63 and 65(c) of Indian Evidence Act (for short ‘the Act’) r/w Section 151 of the Code seeking to receive the xerox copies of documents along with chief affidavit of DW1 in lieu of the original documents (23 documents)

to mark them as secondary evidence.

5. The trial Court dismissed the underlying Interlocutory Application holding that there is no mention in the written statement with regard to the original documents. Further, the Court below found that the petitioners failed to bring on record or produce any material establishing that the photocopies sought to be introduced as secondary evidence were derived from the originals. Therefore, the documents filed herein, cannot be admitted in evidence as secondary evidence.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

7. The petitioners contend that the impugned order is contrary to law and the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 63 & 65(c) of Evidence Act, in rejecting the application on the ground of failure to establish the documents filed in the Court have been lost in transit, notwithstanding the fact that these documents are vital and relevant for the adjudication of the suit.

Hence, the requirement of receiving the documents as secondary evidence is essential and necessary for the purpose of effective and complete adjudication of the above suit.

8. Per contra, the respondents/plaintiffs contend that the petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed on the account of failure to produce certified copies or original documents, as the said documents filed are mere photocopies lacking the requisite legal sanctity to be admitted as secondary evidence; that even if the above said documents are not admitted by the trial Court, it would not prejudice the petitioners defence in the case in any manner.

9. The respondents/plaintiffs further submit that the petitioners have neither filed any list of documents as claimed in their written statement nor served any copies of the said documents thereof, which shows that the petitioners herein have not placed the said documents on record.

10. The respondents/plaintiffs herein also contend that, the petitioners herein failed to furnish any evidence such as inward number (Sr No.) to substantiate their claim of documents getting misplaced or loss of the alleged documents in transit which are claimed as filed before the trial Court, which only make their allegation baseless and false. Thus, the underlying application filed by the petitioners lacks of bona fides and is liable to be dismissed.

11. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

12. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners herein by the underlying interlocutory application have sought to receive the documents as secondary evidence, wherein they had asserted that the said documents were filed along with the written statement and as the same were not found, it is being presumed that the original documents may have been misplaced or lost during the transfer of the suit, which cast