The High Court · 2025

(Suit dismissed against petitioner No.1/defendant No.1, in oS No.462 of 2o19 as abated by docket order dated.24f0o1,12i3n?O.r"nO"rt Smt. Bandi laxmi Wo. B.Venkatesh, aged about49 years, Occ: Pvt. Work, Permanent R/o. H No.18-139, Kothavalasa Village, ParvathipuramMandal, Vijayanagaram Diskict, AP Presently R/o. H No.2-10624, EC. Nagar, Cherlapally, Medchal-Malakajgiri Diskict, TS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 ... Respondents/Plaintiff 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.462 of 2019. on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge - cum Metropolitan Magistrate, at Malkajgiri, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, TS. For the Petitioner : Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu, Advocate For the Respondent: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER I1' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALIISI:IETTY CTVIL REVISION PEIITION NO.1()16 0F 20ir.4 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing th e order dated

04.03.2024 in O.S.No.462 of 201,9 passed by the learned I,rincipal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal Malakajgiri Disrrict at Khushaiguda

2. Heard B. Venkateswarlu, leamed counsel for the r<ttitioners. No representation on behalf of respondent, despite sen it:e of notice. Therefore, matter is disposed basing on the materia I available on record.

3. The petitioners herein are defendants and respordrtnt herein is plaintiff before the trial Court. For convenience, the partie,s hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed O.S.|Jo.462 of 201,9 against the defendants seeking declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property. On service of summons defendants entered appearance and filed written statement and wherr the matter was coming up for trial, plaintiff filed I.A.No.897 of ZO2l\ rrnder Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to receive phohrgraphs and C.Ds and the said application was resisted by the defenda:rtr;. \ ('RP No l016of zUJ ( LNA,,J 2

5. The trial Court allowed application dde order dated L7.70.2O23, with an observation that plaintiff shall be given an opportunity to prove her case and in case, the photographs are morphed, the same can be elicited at the time of cross examination.

6. Aggrieved by the order dated "17.'10.2023, defendants preferred C.R.P.No.296 of 2024, before this Court, and the same was dismissed oide order dated 15.07.2024. While the said revision was pending, photographs and C.Ds. were marked through PW.1 as Ex.A7, though, the defendants have taken objection on the ground that photographs are morphed, and thus they are inadmissible in evidence. However, the kial Court vide docket order dated 04.03.2024, overruled the objection raised by the defendant and marked the same as Ex.A7. Aggrieved by the said docket order, the present revision is filed

7. L,earned counsel for the petitioners would submit that trial Court erred in marking photographs and C.D, wid:rout insisting for application under Section 658 of Indian Ev idence Act and that C.R.P.No.296 of 2024 filed by the defendants assailing the order dated

17.10.2023 in I.A. No. 897 of 2023 was pending for adjudication and therefore, trial Court ought not to have marked photographs and C.D. Learned counsel further contended that photographs are inadmissible I L''1.J, C Rt, Na l0l6of202t 3 in the eye of law and hence, the same ought not to hav,: l>een marked by the trial Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contt:nded that tria I Court ought not to have marked the documents in vit:,.v of the serious objections raised by the petitioners that photographs ,rr.e morphed and that in one of the photographs, there are garlands ir lhe necks of the wife and husbantl and in the other photograph, theri: ;rre no garlands and more so in tl-re absence of application under Se<-t.orr 658 of Indian Evidence Act and thus, prayed to allow the revision.

9. It is relevant to note that trial Court allowed l ,A No.g97 of 2023 vide Order dated 17.10.2023 and the photographs alorg with C.D. were received on file. In the said application, similar objectic n was taken by the defendants that photographs cannot be taken on rt,corcl. Assailing the order dated 17.10.2023 in I.A.No.897 of 2023 the petitioners preferred C.li..P.No.296 of 2024 and the said revision was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.20 24 withan observation that rr-ocedure of Iaw are designed to f acilitate and not to frusrrate the en l:, of justice and further observed that the defendants have an oppr.rrunity to cross examine the petitioners, therefore, objections raised bv the defendants were overruled t ( f, LNA,J, (-RP \o 10160f2021 4

10. It is relevant to note that earlier, application filed by the respondent to receive the photographs was opposed by the petitioner herein/defendant on the ground that the photographs were morphed. However, the hail Court rejected the objection and allowed the application and the same was chattenged by the petitioner vide CRp No.897 of 2023 and this Court dismissed the said CRp vide order dated

17.'10.2024. As rightly observed by the learned Single judge in CRp No.897 of 2023 that the petitioners have every opporrunity to cross examine PW.1 with regard to genuinity of photographs and C.Ds and further, the petitioners are also at liberty to challenge and disprove the photographs by producing evidence.

11. In considered opinion of this Court and the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, and this Court does not find any ground or reason to interfere with the impugned order and thus, revision is devoid of any merits.

12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The Princioal Junior Civil Judge - cum - Metroool Malkajgiri bistrict, TS at Malkajgiri One CC to Sri Bethi Venl(ateswarlu, Advocate [OP UCI n Magistrate, Medchal To, 01 2 HIGH COURT DATED:9/6/2025 J ORDER CRP.No.1016 of 2024 .t' :\ ' ,')i.'\r.. 26 sEP zffi ( ,,:/ REVISION IS DISMISSED, NO COSTS \6