##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4051 & 4053 of 2025

DATE: 22.04.2026

BETWEEN:

Singu Ravi

…..petitioner

And

Vinjamara Vijay Kumar and another

…..Respondents

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the

orders dated 12.09.2025 and 12.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.249

of 2023 & I.A.No.250 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2020 by the

learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the

petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.03 of 2020 seeking

cancellation of registered sale deeds dated 10.07.2019 and

recovery of balance sale consideration, contending that

2

SKS,J

C.R.P.Nos.4051, 4053 of 2025

though the total consideration was Rs.64,00,000/-, only a

part payment was made by the respondents/defendants.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.249 of 2023

under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking

permission to adduce secondary evidence of the said

documents through xerox copies. The trial Court dismissed

the application on the grounds that the petitioner failed to lay

proper foundation for leading secondary evidence, particularly

in view of the earlier dismissal of the application for

production of originals, and also observed that the documents

appeared to be insufficiently stamped and hence inadmissible

unless deficit stamp duty and penalty were paid.

4. Further, the petitioner filed I.A.No.250 of 2024 under

Order XI Rule 14 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC seeking a

direction to the respondents to produce original documents,

namely the agreement of sale dated 04.05.2019 and

endorsements/receipts dated 13.06.2019, 09.07.2019 and

24.07.2019, asserting that the originals were in the custody of

the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the said

application holding that the petitioner failed to prima facie

3

SKS,J

C.R.P.Nos.4051, 4053 of 2025

establish that the documents were in the possession of the

respondents and mere pleadings were insufficient to compel

production. Aggrieved by dismissal of both the I.As., the

present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

5. Heard Sri S. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri K. Devender, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

trial Court erred in dismissing the application seeking

permission to lead secondary evidence, despite the petitioner

specifically pleading that the original documents are in the

custody of the respondents and that that the respondents

failed to file any counter disputing the said application and

the Court ought to have drawn an adverse inference against

them. He further submitted that the petitioner had already

taken steps by filing an application under Order XI Rule 14

read with 151 of CPC, and upon denial by the respondents,

the only remedy available was to lead secondary evidence and

that the law permits production of xerox copies when originals

are withheld by the opposite party, and the trial Court failed

4

SKS,J

C.R.P.Nos.4051, 4053 of 2025

to appreciate settled principles governing secondary evidence,

thereby passing a mechanical and perverse order.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

trial Court ought to have allowed the application for

production of original documents, as the petitioner

consistently pleaded that the documents were executed by

respondent No.2 and retained in his custody. He further

submitted that the documents are crucial for adjudication of

the dispute relating to payment of sale consideration and that

denial of their production has caused serious prejudice to the

petitioner. He further contended that the trial Court failed to

consider that the respondents cannot take advantage of their

own denial and refusal to produce documents, and that the

Court should have exercised its powers under Order XI Rule

14 read with 151 of CPC to compel production. Therefore, he

prayed the Court to set aside the orders of the trial Co