IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION.NO.111 OF 2022 DATED: 6^th FEBRUARY, 2026 BETWEEN :

Mr.Mannem Srinivas, S/o.Mannem Kalidas, Aged about 56 years, Occupation: Private Employee, Working at Canada, Permanent R/o.H.No.3-6-310, SBH Colony-I, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad-74.

… Petitioner/Plaintiff AND

1. Mannem Kalidas (Died)

2. Mannem Srikanth, S/o.Mannem Kalidas, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Software Engineer, R/o.H.No.22-1-566, Noorkhanbazar, Hyderabad.

…Respondents-Defendants

ORDER

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in IA.No.522 of 2021 in OS No.255 of

2009.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the defendants in OS.No.255 of 2009.

2.1. IA.No.522 of 2021 is filed under Section 65(a)(b) of the Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking leave of the Court to permit the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in respect of certified copy of Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed, dated 10.11.2008 vide document No.5159 of 2008 and certified copy of Sale Deed, dated 14.11.2008 vide document No.5229 of 2008.

2.2. It is stated in the affidavit that at the time of filing the suit he has filed certified copy of Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed vide document No.5159 of 2008, dated 10.11.2008 executed by respondent No.1-defendant No.1 and certified copy of Sale Deed vide document No.5229 of 2008, dated 14.11.2008 executed by respondent No.1-defendant No.1 in favour of respondent No.2- defendant No.2 as the originals of these documents are in possession of respondents-defendants. The existence of these documents is admitted by the respondents-defendants in their pleadings and they are in their possession and sought leave to mark them as secondary evidence.

2.3. Respondent No.1 is shown as died in the cause title of IA.No.

522 of 2021.

3. Respondent No.2-defendant No.2 filed counter and contended that ingredients of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act have not been complied with and according to the petitioner-plaintiff the original documents are in possession of the respondents-defendants which cannot be presumed in particular in absence of any notice to produce as contemplated under Section 66 of Indian Evidence Act and the application does not show the cause of delay in filing the same, affidavit is vague and bald of particulars in respect of non- filing of appropriate application at the stage of filing the documents and prayed to dismiss the same.

4. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties has dismissed the application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the provisions contained in Section 65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act in proper perspective. The finding of the learned trial Court that the petitioner has to first issue notice to the person in whose custody the documents are lying before leading the secondary evidence under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the notice is not issued and the petitioner was not permitted to lead secondary evidence. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner-plaintiff has also sought relief under Section 65(b) of the Evidence Act which clearly states that “when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representatives in interest”. The learned trial Court failed to see that the respondents-defendants admitted in the written statement about the existence of subject documents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments contended that the certified copies filed thereon fall under Section 65 (e) and Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, to substantiate his conten