The High Court · 2025

Sri. Kamatam Gnaneshwar Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, aged 51 years, Occ Employee R-/o H.No 'l-10-313/1, Brahmanivadi, Begumpet, Hyderabad- 16. K. Srinivas Rao, Sio Satyanarayana, Aged about 51 years, Occ Employee, R/o H.No.'l-10-313/1, Brahmanivadi, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16 ...Petitioner/Plaintiff ...Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim stay order passed by this Hon'ble Court in I A.No.1 ot 2O24 in CRP No. 99 of 2O24, trom 0110412024 to until further orders in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS No. 401 of 2022 (Old OS No. 294 of 2008) on the file of the ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkaigiri District at Malkajgiri now at Kushaiguda till the drsposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri R Bala Subramanyam Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER i I I I l i I I l: I I ,.\ THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SU.'ANA CIVIL RE\IISIOlT PETITION No.99 oF 20/24 ORDER: The present Civil Revision petition is filed by the plaintiff against the docket order dated 19.12.2023 in O.S.No.4Ol of 2022 (Old O.S.No.2 94 of 2OO8l on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri (for short .the trial Court).

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The facts of the case are that rhe plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properry i.e., plot bearing No.S7 admeasuring 332 square yards, Survey No.lol situated at Medipally village, Hyathnagar Taluq (presentty, Ghatkesar Mandal, Raaga Reddy District). The plaintiff ctaims to be the absolute owner artd possessor of the suit schedule property having acquired the same by way of registered sale deed document bearing No. 1327 of 1983 dated 01.03.1983. It is stated tlrat on Ol.O2.2OOg and l3.O2.2OOS, the defendants, along wittr their henchmen, besides entering the suit schedule property, also tried to intcrlere with the peacefur possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedulc property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff rrled a suit. pendent rite, I I i I I 2 sxsJ CN' No 99 of2021 the plaintiff tendered the evidence through PW.l i e', to mark the file proceedings No.A5/24l2o18 dated 12'02'2019 which was obtained under RTI Act.

4. By the impugned order, the trial Court rejected to mark the certihed copy of file proceedings No-AS/24/2018 dated 12.O2.2019 which was obtained under RTI Act' In this regard, it is relevant to extract the relevant finclings of the trial Court, which reads thus:- "d he flle proeedings No.As/ 24/ 2018 datcd 12.02.2109 is a Memo issued by Reqisional Deputg Director, SurueV and l,and Reards, Hgderabad add.ressed Si Prem K-Aman and Si Seethram Redd!1. This mmmunication u.tas in response to Sri Prern Kumar Aman request for correction of Tippan artd other records of Surueg No-102 situated at Medipally Viltage and Mandal, Medchol Malkajgiri Drslrict. Thr-s document does not sati.sfu the test of public docum"ttt under Section 74 of the lndian Evidence Act, 1872 Qs it is a communication betuEen a public olficial arul a piuate person and is not available for the purpose of public reference and. use. h cannot be said that I'ultltc ore interested. in doqtment (file proceetltngs No.AS/ 24/ 2O18 dated 72-O2.2O19) and are enhtled to check the mistakes or errors in doalments and if there are qng enors or wrongs in it theg are entitle to protest. Il cannot be said. that the Public hl].s nght to inspect file proeedings No.AS/2a/2018 dated 12.O2.2019 and can obtain certtfied copg of th.e sarne bg paging prescibed Jee- h) Therefore, copg of file proceedings Na.AS/24/2018 dated 12.02-2O19 obtained bg plaintilf under RTI does not Jall tuithin scope and ambit of Section 74 of the Indian Euidence Ad, 1872 as a consequence such doqtment need to be held as priuate docunent fo ittg under scope of Section 75 of thc Indian Euidence Act' 1872." (verbatim reprod uced ) 3 .sKs../ CRP No.99 of 2021

5. Heard Sri R.Bala Subramanyam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though notice was served, none appeared on behalf of t.lle respondents. Perused the material available on record.

6. Lramed counsel for the revision petitioner contended that though the document obtained under RTI Act is a public document, the trial Court has erroneously rejected to mark the same. He further contended that the document obtained under RTI i.e., file proceedings No.A5/24 l2Ola dated 12.O2.2O 19 is to be marked for the purpose of better adjudication of the litigation. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Katlke Bleetn Slta:nkar a. T.Laxtnl alias Punga uathi and others' and prayed the Court to allow the revision petition. For better appreciation of the facts of the case, it is 7. apposite to reproduce the Sections 65, 74 and 7'5 of the Indian Eviden ce Act,.1872, which reads as under: ln uthic,i- secondary 65. Ccs€s euldence relating to doc'umcflt t 7.4y be gkna- kandary euidence maq be qiuen of lhe existene, condition or contents of a daa)ment in the folLotuin4 cases: (a)Wheft the onginal is shoi n o' oppears to be in ltle Possesslo'r o' power of the person aqat$t urltoot tle doatmenl is sought to be proued or of ' 2023(31 ALD 614 (TS) 4 sKs./ CRP tto.99 ol2o2a onu petson out of readl of, or ftot subieLl to, the pro@ss of the Cot4 or of a^u perso^ Iegoly bound. lo produ@ 11, and uhen, dfter tt@ not P nl@ntion€d sectiol 66, such person does ftot h)When thc existe^@, @nditioft or .nntents of lhe origilul hatE beeft Droued to be o.dmitted in uriting bU lhe person againsl @hom it is ptoLEd or by hrs represcnlatiue in interest; (c)when lhe original has been d.estroued or lost, or uh.e^ tle WrtU offetin4 euidence of its @nlents c4nnot, for atll olher reoson not dri.sing ftom his oun ,lcfauh o. fleglet produ@ il reasol1.ble titne;

74. PtLbUc doc-uflt€nts. The follouing doqtments are Public doetments :- (l )Documents forming the acts or [email protected] of lh" ocls - lt)of the souereign outhoitV; fu)of olfiaat bodtes ond t ibunals; and. btlo[ public ofiers, leqslotiue, pdiaat and. exeatiE, lof onA Pon of Itrlia or of the hmmoruteolthl [|le ongulal toords "u,hEther of B'itish Indid, or oJ ang other part of Het MaieslA's dominions" haue successiuely been amended bg A.O. 1918 did A.O. 1950 to reo.d os aboue L or of a foreiqt @untry; (2)t\tbltc records kept stotel lsubstituted. bu A.o. 1950, for "in ang Prot'tnce .l of pivate docam.ents- 7 5. Priuate doclrm3ltrts. All olhcr docutnents ate priuate." (verbatim reproduccd)

8. A plain reading of the above makes it is crystal clear that the copies obtained under the Right to Information Act certified bv the Authorised Information Officer cannot be called as public documents or primary evidence.

9. On the aloresaid touchstone, in the instant case, it is apparent that thc revision petitioner obtained the certi{ied >.C: 5 S,(t/ CRP No.99 of 2024 copy of file proceedings No.A5/24l2O18 dated 12 02 '2019 under RTI Act, which is a communication between a public oflicial and a private person. Pertinently, the photostat copy certified by the designated Public Information Officer under Right to Information Act of the private documents are not certihed copies within the meaning of the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. They are merely true copies of the private documents available in tJle records of the particular Department. The production and marking of such copies is permissible only aJter laying a foundation for acceptance of secondary evidence under clauses (a) (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the Act. The condition prescribed under the above cases (a), (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the Act have to be fulfilled before marking the true copies obtained under the Right to Information Act. It is suffice to mention that in case of private documents, the copies of which are obtained under the Right to Information Act, the provisions of Evidence Act with regard to secondary evidence have to be satisfred. It is noteworthy that the documents obtained under RTI Act can be admitted as secondary evidence, as they are obtained under a par[icular enactment, which fall within ambit of by "any other law in force in [ndia". Hence, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no I I I I I I 6 s(s../ CRP No.99 of2024 infirmity or illegality is discernable with the impugned docket order in rejecting to mark ttre said document which was obtained under RTI Act.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed ,TTRUE COPY" Sd/. V. KAVITHA ANT REGISTRAR ASSIS ECTION OFFICER To, r The ll Additional Senror Civil Judge' ; o"; CC to Srr R Bala SubramanYam' 3. Two CD CoPtes Medchal Malkaigiri District at Malkaigirt Advocate [OPUC] I ADt(gh q* HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 ORDER CRP.No.99 ot 2O24 DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS .G!F.' :.:.\ 1$t ..tf Ai € qi:::i (Lo ( c i 25ii3?rzs , ^r:::::::,, I I I i