The High Court · 2025

7. Arunlal Yadav, slo late lvlun;ia Eai andArjunlal Yada aged abou|22 years, occupation. Business rlo PIot no 66. Santagii'i Colony Neredmet X Road, f{ K Puram Secunderacad .".RESPONDENTSi DEFENDANTS --f lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unrier f ,e,:trcn 151 CPC pra';ing that in the circirn,strrnces stated in the affiCavit filed i: sl;r;pcii cf tlre petition, the High Court nray be p eased to grant stay of all furthe; prc:i:eCiirqs in OS I'J o iA412O22 on the fi e tf Senicr- Civil .Judge, Ranga Recldl,' i)istrict at Kukatpaily, pending disposal cf CRF and pass Counsel for the Peiitir>ner: SRl. B. RAVEENDRA BABU Counsel for the Re:;Jrorrdent No.,'i : SRi RAKESH SANGHI q[r L REVISION PETITION llO: 379 OF 2A25 Petition iJnde' Article 227 <:f Constitution of lndia agai-rst the order dated 17-12-2024 ;ras,sed in l.A. No. 764 of ZOZ3 in O.S.No. 1C41 of 2O2Z ( Old O.S.No. 943 120?1 , C,.S.No. 1697 12011 ) on the file cf the Cori-t of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally Betwee n: l\.1,/s Narrre Estates F v Lto a ,;crnpany registered under. the Coi"ri,;i ies Act having ofiice at 1 Gunroci'r l::r';iave secunoe:'abad, Jeiangana 500 (lil;r r:er.iesented by it! iirector Gokui l.Jarr.e sk, late Coi RanEa Flao- Narne (Reli;. a ]ed ai-.oui 51 y'ears,occupaticn. Bt s tteS:: r"1: 86 Gunrock En ciave. Secundera Lra i. --eiangana tl09 AND ...pETlTlONESrFli_r rltilTt"FF 50C I ? J 5 5 7 Ralu Bai @ ILaj r.urnaii, ,i/o late D Shankerial agecj abcut 4C :,e trs. cccupalion- i-i(lL: e.,.,rif--, Rio. H.lrJc. .1-37 385, ,AmbectkaR Sccrei,,,. Balam R.ai, SecLindei'aDao. N4unna Ba;. {i/o .te i.) Sh:nkei'lal rJieci) as oer LR (Responde,rr z) aged about 33 years, occup liic:r- ilousewife R/o Balar-nrai, Baianaqar r-nar jai, Hanoa Reddy c as ti'i. I P vittal, sic Laie liiarrciiaiah agrd abcut 40 years, coci-rpatroir iiusiness r/o H Nc 1-45. Teiiarur rrliiai,-e Serilinc a rn pa ily rriandal fvleiak ir.ir:t V R Vigne sh t,:r,' [?eJ,.lr.' si c.V.Ram redcJy ageci abo,.]t 33 iears ;cc,rpation_ b.,isrness r1c -ll ,tc iC2, Lakshtni Plaza,.jaiaratiyr Eank Streel Funlagutta, Hyderabad R Srinivas Yada,r. sr'o R iv1ailesha... aged about 34 ./ears, oci_ p.,rtron_ Business ric Sr-'r I rrganrpaily man,-;a:, li;rcga Reddiidrstrict B Srinivas, s/c lat,; B Ranruli; aleC ;bout 4C years. occrrpatici"_ lusiness r/o Balamrai. Secun ierahao Arunial Yadav. s. t; lat:r |olur-irr.a Ba1gn9 A{L;nlaiyada aged abcut 22 years, -' occupation Bu:iress ric Plct nc S6, Saptagiri Colony liereCr.,et X n6aO R. K. Purart Se,c.r,icerabad ...RESPONDENTSi D-:FENDANTS .,/ lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the ctrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hign Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in OS No 1041i2A22 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ranga R.eddy District at Kukatpally, pending disposal of CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B. RAVEENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI RAKESH SANGHI, SENIOR COUNSEL The Court made the following ORDER: -a- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.375 aro.d379 of2o25 COMMON ORDER : Since the issue arising in the instant Ci"'il Revision Petitions and the parties thereto are sarne, the Ci'r'il Revision Petitions are beirrg disposed of by this Common Order'

2. Heard Mr,l3. Raveendra Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner; and I\4r. Rakesh Sanghi, learned Senior Cc'unsel for respondent No,l / defendant No.1.

3. Civil Rei,ision Petition No.375 of 2025 is file'l by the petitioner undr:r Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order dated 17.12.2024 in I.A.No.764 of 2023 in O.S.No.104 1 cf 2022 passed by the Senior Civii Jttd11e, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally; and Civil Revision Petitit,n No.379 of 2025 is file,l .ry the same petitioner under Article 2)27 of th-e Constitution cf India assailing the Order dated 17.IZ.2O24 in I.A.No.887 of 11,(t'.24 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 passed b.t 1he Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally (for srhort, the impugned ComrrLon Order'). 2 PSK,J crp 375&379 _2025

4. For convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their array / status before the Trial Court.

5. Initially, the suit O.S.No. 1041 of 2022 (Old Nos. O.S.No.943 of 2O2I and 1697 of 2O 1 1) was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff herein under Section 26 read with Order VII Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Order XXXIV Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court seeking for grant of perpetual injunction by restraining the respondents / defendants herein, their agents, henchmen or anyone claiming through them from interfering with the petitioner / plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, or claiming through them from alienating, creating aly charge, mortgage in respect of the suit schedule property by way of permanent injunction.

6. Pending suit, respondent No.1 / defendant No.l had filed I.A.No.764 of 2023 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 :under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 19O8 praying the Tria,l Court for rejection of the following documents, viz., (a) (b) (c) Photocopy of the agreement of sale dated 07.03.1996; Photocopy of the agreement of sale dated 22.06.1998; Photocopy of the agreement of sale dated 30.01 .2009; -t- - ^, PSK,J crp 375.ta19 2025 Photoiropy of the agreement of sale dated 1 1 08 i978; Photo,:o cv of the agreement of renewal; Photogr-aphs relied upon by the petitioner/plalrtiff; & Self-serzing laY-out sketch' (d) (e) (r) (e)

7. Pending suir., the petitioner / plaintiff filed I'A'No 887 of 2024 in O.S.No.1o41 of 2022 und'er Order 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 15 of Civil Procedure Code' 19O8 praying the 'lrial Court to permit the petitioner / rlaintiff to lead secondar.v t:vidence'

8. Vid-e the i:r:1>ugned common order' the Trial Court' after hearing both sides, allowed I'A No'764 ol 2023 in O'S'No 104 1 of 2022 and dismis;si:d I.A.No'887 of 2024 in O'S'No' 1041 o" 2022' g. Aggrievecl, 'l-re instant Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petiliorer / plaintiff'

10. Learned cottnsel for the petitioner primariiy contenCed that the documents cn vvhich the petitioner want to lead st'condary evidence,r,r,erezlreadymarkedasexhibits;atthetimeof marking of the documents, no objection was raised by the respondent No 1 / defendant No' 1 herein; and there ore' the respondent No.1 / defend.ant No' 1 cannot be now perrnitted to raise objection under Order XIII Rule 3' 4 PSK,J crp _37 5&319 _2025 ''I

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the I.A.No.764 of 2O23 in O.S.No.104l of 2022, hled by the respondent No.l / defendant No.l is hit by the doctrine of estoppel. According to him, the documents which were sought to be marked were one which have been obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and these documents were duly stamped by the Public Information Officer, and that they have also been held to be valid and lega1 documents even under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2OO5 are genuine, authentic and valid ones and they become admissible in evidence and can also be marked to lead evidence. L2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, the objections that were raised by the respondent No. I / defendant no.l before the Trial Court seeking for rejection of those documents were based on false and vague a-llegations and they were of bald in nature. He specifically contended that the documents that were sought to be marked for leading secondar5r evidence were one which were obtained recently, as the originals of the above said documents seems to have been stolen from the office of the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner / plaintiff had no other option except to lead secondar5l evidence on the v f, PSK.J cry_)75&379 2025 basis of those dc'cltments which have been otrtained uncler the Righttolnformali'rnAct,2OO5'HethereforeprayedthtCourt for setting aside 1lie impugned order in I'A'No 764 o1' 2023 tn O.S.No.1041 of 2A2"2; and'also to allow the I'A'No'887 of ''\O24 \n o.S.No.1O4 1 of 2|C:,,22 and permit the petitioner l plaintiff to lead evidence in the rnatter 13. In supporr 'lf his contentions' learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Slupreme Court in the cast: of Datti Kameswari vs' Singam Rao Sarath chandral and zrlsc in the case of Appalya vs' Andimuthu alias ThangaPandi2

14. Per contro, Mr' Rakesh Sanghi' learned Senior Counsel appeaflng on beha-lf of respondent No' 1 / defendarrt No' 1' opposing the Revisions' contended that the Trial C'rurt has rightly allowed I.\'No'764 of 2O23 in O'S'No'1O4L ol 2022 flled by the resporLdt:nt No' 1 / defendant No' 1 on the follor'r'ing grounds, viz., firstl y , the suit itself is one for relief of perpetual (i) injunction against the respondents / defendants; claiming that their t:laim over the suit schedule property Is only on r 2015 SCC Onlin:'15'd 389 ' 2023 SCC Onl,int: 1l I I 183 \.-f $"8 6 PSK,J crp_375&379 2025 \ - the basis of an agreement of sale that is alleged to have executed by the respondent No.l / defendant No.l in favour of the petitioner / plaintiff; (ii) the fact that there is an agreement of sa-Ie in favour of the petitioner / plaintiff by itself would not establish that he has any right over the said propert5r; (iii) the documents which the petitioner wants to rely on to lead as secondary evidence are those documents which have been obtained from the Office of the District Registrar under the Right to Information Act, 2OO5; (i") since the documents which have been produced by the petitioner / plaintiff to be marked are only photocopies of yet another photocopies of documents maintained in the Office of the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, therefore photocopy of another photocopy document is inadmissible in secondarv evidence in the absence of original document having got destroyed or having got lost.

15. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.l / defendant No. 1 relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of , ,) ; t I I 7 PSK.J c4r 3758 379_2025 Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Regency Mahavir Properties3' wherein it heid tlr.et a certified copy of a sale deed can Itever be considered as a "lublic document" under Sections 73 r'o 77 of thelndianEviderceAct,TsT2,aSthecertifiedcopiesarenot prepared on the llasis of the original records but are based upon a photocopy ol' t he document retained in the Offict' of the Registrar.

16. Similar are l'he facts in the instant case, where the original records of the al teged agreement of sa-le are alreadl ''vith the parties and. whiet u'as retained in the Oflice of the Regis'trar was only a photocoF'v. Therefore, the decision in Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. ( 1 supla) , squarely applies to the facts of th( ) instant CASE.

17. Likewise, learned Senior Counsel appearing orl llehalf of the respondent I'{o.1 / defendant No' 1 relied on the judgment in the cases of Ba drunnisa Begum vs' Mohamooda Beguma' K. Bhaskar Rao vs. K.A. Rama Raos and Datti Kameshwari vs. Marrapu Lakshmunaidu6, wherein it has been lajd down by the High cor,rrt of Andhra Pradesh that certified copir,:s issued 3 A.I.R. 2020 S.c. .+0.f i o 2oo I (3) A.L.D. 1 1 (l) B.) ;2010 (s) A.l--D. 3:9 u 2016 (1) A.L.T. 7o,l 8 PSK,J crp_315&379)025 \ ,-q - under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be considered as "certified copies" of public documents within the meaning of Section 73 to 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 unless and until the authority issuing the certified copy retains the original with them, unlike in the instant case.

18. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on a perusal of the record, this Court, at the hrst instance, is of the considered opinion that the instant Revisions are those which are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is by now well settled proposition of law that while exercising the extraordinar5r supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court u,ould not sit over the orders passed by the Trial Court as a fact finding appellate Court. The High Court wouldn't also threadbare re-appreciate the entire facts and circurnstalces of the case including the evidence and pleadings available on record to reach to yet another conclusion. On the other hand, the only scope of interference to the impugned common order exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are, (a) if the order impugred has a jurisdictional issue, I i.e., either without jurisdiction or ii'excess of jurisdiction; (b) if the order impugned is per se illegal and totally perverse; and (c) / -a 9 PSK,J crp-]15&319 _2025 whether the impupined order is one which is contrary to iaw and statute. Lg. It is pertinent to note that the lis involved in the instant Revisions is one ,vhere the I.A'No'764 of 2023 in O'S'No 1041 of 2022 hasbeen iall'xn'ed by the Trial Court refusing permrssion to the petitione r I p:.ajntlff to mark certain documents u'h Lch they had obtained ttnrler the Right to Information Act, 20c5; and secondly, rejecl-ir.rg the I.A.No'887 of 2024 in O'S'No 1041 of 2022, ftled. by the petitioner / plaintiff, to lead sccondary evid.ence in respect of those documents which it had 'lbtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005'

20. The suit, r'ri;., O.S.No.1O41 of 2022, is primarill' a suit for perpetual injunc:: on and the said suit for perpetual inju nction is based on an indrvidua-l dispute between the petitioner 7 plaintiff ald respondents / defendants. When the petitioner / plaintiff had filed the s;,rit for grant of temporary injunction' it is incumbent upor L the petitioner / plaintiff to have pleaLded and produced beforr: the Trial Court all necessar5r an':l cogent documents in original to substantiate his claim as also its right' title and possession over the suit schedule property' 1 :: l0:: w T, PSK,J crp 375&379 2025

21. In the instant case, the documents obtained by the petitioner / plaintiff under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seems to be those which have been obtained in the recent past. From a perusal of the records, it goes to show that the petitioner / plaintiff had filed the above suit on the basis of the documents which have been obtained by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The fact that petitioner / plaintiff had obtained the said documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 must be for the reason that the originals thereof were not available with him from the beginning. Yet, the petitioner / plaintiff did not, at any point of time, reveal it to the Court that copies of documents that have been filed were obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2O05 because of non-availability of the originals. That these documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 have been duly got validated from the Office of the District Registrar and they have also been validated by payment of deficit stamp duty before the District Registrar.

22. The Tria1 Court, having found that the documents which have been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff in the suit were either photocopies or certified copies of the photocopies, the same therefore would become inadmissible in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the said circumsta?rces, a perusal -/ -/ ::ll:: PSK,J crp ._37 5 LL37 9 2025 of order XIII Rrr]r' 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. rr.or rld go to show that a Court hearing a suit has got power for rej'rction of irrelevant and irLadmissible documents duly recording grounds of such rejection. The reasoning given by the Trial Corlrt in its impugned orde.r carnot be found fault with nor' can it be said to be arbitrarl,. Pt:rusa,l of the pleadings and the corLtents of I.A.No.764 of ilcril,3 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 would go to show that, there does; not seem to be any case made out by tht: learned counsel for the pt:titioner / plaintiff that could be accepted to be justil-rable and bcnaJide ground to permit him to lead s:condary evidence 2g. In the case of U. Sree vs. U. SrinivasT, the Hon'ble Supreme Cou ri had the occasion of dealing r'"ith the circumstances trnder which 'secondary evidence' carr be permitted to be led. In paragraph Nos.15 to 17, tt held rs under, "15. In J, Yashoda r'. K. Shobha Rani8, alter analyzing the la guage employed in Sie,:rions 63 and 65 (a), a two-Judge Bench hcld as folk ws:- "Secti,t-r 65. however permits secondary cvidencc to bc given of thc existence, c,r rdition or contents of documents under the cjrcttlnstances mentioned. The,:onditions laid down in the said section must bc frLlfitled 'zo r: lry arr 1sc) r8 ( D.B. ) 'zoo; (t) sc.l szs I I : r a I & 22121: PSK,J crp_375&379_2075 *r before secondary evidence can be admifted. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document camot be admitted without non- production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other ofthe cases provided for in the section."

16. In M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu and Othere, It has been held as follows:- "lt is true that a parly who wishes to rely upon the contents of a document must adduce primary evidence of the contents, and only in the exccptional cases will secondary evidcnce be admissible. However, if secondary evidence is admissible, it may be adduced in any form in which it may be available, whether by production of a copy, duplicate copy of a copy, by oral evidence ofthe contcnts or in another tbrm. The secondary evidence must be authenticatcd by foundational cvidcnce that the alleged copy is in fact a truc copy ofthe original. It should be emphasised that the exccptions to thc rulc rcquiring primary evidence are designed to provide relief in a case where a party is genuinely unable to produce the original through no fault of that party." Recently. in H. Siddiqui (Dead) by Lrs. v. A. Ramalingamr0,

17. while dealing with Section 65 of the Evidence Act, this Court opined though the said provision permits the parties to adduce secondary evidencc, yet such a course is subject to a large number of limitations. In a case where the original documents are not produccd at any time, nor has any factual foundation been laid for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court.to allow a party to adducs secondary evidence. Thus, secondary cvidcncc rclating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until thc non-production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section- The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence '(2olo) 9 s.c.c. 712 'u (2007) 5 s.c.c. 730 ,// - ::13:: PSK,J crp_i 75 E. 3 79-2025 that the allcgec )pv is in fact a true copy of tlie original' It has reen further held thlt nere admission of a document in evidence doe: not amount to its procf. fherefore, it is the obligation of the Court to d':cide the question of a,Jtissibility of a document in secondary evidencc b':fore making endot stt I('l.It thereon.''

24.Thus,intheconsideredopinionofthisCourt'thefindings arrived at b)'the'lrial court even in rejecting I'A.No'887 of 2024 in O.S.No.1O4t of 2022 also cannot be found farLlt with' Further, the <ler:isions in Datti Kameswari (1 supra) and Appalya (2 supra) have been entirely decided in a different contextua,l bacl<gr-ound and thus they are distlnguishal rle on its own facts itself, 'lherefore, the said decisions do not corne to the aid of the Petitioner. 2lo. Thus. in th e above given facts and circumstanc:s of the case,thisCourtsofthefirmviewthatnostrongcasehasbeen made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to interdict the impugned common order dated 17 '12'2024 in I'A'1llo'764 of 2023andI.A.l,Itl887of2024ino.S'No'1o4lo|20221lassedby the Senior Civil "ludge, Ranga Reddy District' at Kukatpally' The Revisions thereltrre being devoid of merits deserve to blr' artd are accordingly dismissed. No costs. , : : 14:: PSK,J crp_375&379_2025 ! AI 26 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand dismissed. sD/-P PABIIHABR$,EFRRX ,TRUE COPY// S ECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 TI-reSeniorCivilJudge,Rar:-caRedt-IyDistrict.atKukatpally One CC to SRl. B. RAVEENDIIA B'-iBU' Advocate [OPUC] one CC to SRI RAKESH SANGH1' r\dvocate [oPUCl Two CD CoPies Luill'51. (d-, HIGH COURT iiATED:231031202S COMT,,IOFJ ORDER. CRP.Nos.375 and 3r-ti ..ti )-i)25 r.. ir:i.(i7h 71 ;,'fr 2C25 (-) ,Y f) A $ o 4+ i)l!\1i.(,1).{i i}11-i}i.tr . ir.:t :L i,isij:t. '':, tt )\\ \'1 ll:ir' .r . ; *Re\ (9 YT.<c i{'r* l t I