ORDER:

Heard Sri Sarat Chandra Sivalenka, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Racharla Sowmya Rani, learned counsel representing Sri Nageswar Rao Pujari, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. Perused the material available on the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.1044 of 2022 in O.S.No.124 of 2015. By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petitioners’ application filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the C.P.C seeking permission to mark a photocopy of the Family Settlement Deed dated 06.11.2000 as secondary Evidence.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the learned Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

4. The factual backdrop to the present revision as borne out from the record, is as follows:

(a) The case originates from O.S.No.151 of 2019 filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and allotment of 1/3rd share each out of the share of Defendant No.1. The plaintiffs, in the plaint, relied upon a Family Settlement Deed dated 06.11.2000, stating that the original was in the custody of Defendant Nos.1 to 3, while they were in possession of only a photocopy. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1251 of 2019 seeking a direction to the defendants to produce the original Family Settlement Deed, however, the same was dismissed by order dated 10.01.2020 on the basis of the stand taken by the defendants that the original document had been lost or misplaced and was not in their possession.

(b) Thereafter, at the stage of trial, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No.1044 of 2022 seeking permission to mark the photocopy of the said Family Settlement Deed as secondary evidence. However, the learned Trial Court, by order dated 02.08.2022, dismissed the said application holding that the document, being in the nature of a family settlement/partition deed, required compulsory registration and proper stamping and that a photocopy thereof was inadmissible in evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioners/ Plaintiffs:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that despite diligent and bonafide efforts made by the petitioners to secure and prove the original Family Settlement Deed dated 06.11.2000, the same could not be traced. Even according to the respondents themselves, the original document was either lost or misplaced. In such circumstances, it was contended that the learned Trial Court ought to have permitted the photocopy of the said document to be marked as secondary evidence, particularly when no serious prejudice would be caused to the respondents/defendants. It was further argued that the said document is crucial, vital and essential for adjudication of the suit for partition, as the burden lies upon the plaintiffs to establish their case and the said document goes to the very root of the controversy involved in the suit.

5. The learned counsel further contended that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioners established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in their favour. It was argued that the written statement itself contains an admission regarding the existence of the document titled “Property” dated 06.11.2000, describing it as a temporary family arrangement entered into for effective administration of the properties while the defendant No.1 was employed in the USA. According to the petitioners, such pleadings themselves constitute an acknowledgment of the existence of the said document, and therefore, the photocopy assumes a p