The High Court · 2025

3. Bonthu Jaya Sudha, Wo Srinivasa Rao, Aged 45 years, occ. House hold, R/o H.No. 6-187/'1, Ayyagaripeta (V), Sathupally (M), Khammam Dist. ...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that jn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in O.S No. 158 of 2019 dated 04.03.2025 on the file of the Court of the Vl Additional District Judge at Khammam, in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondents: KIRAN REDDY MALLARAPU The Court made the following: ORDER ) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1439 OF 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by thc petitioncr seeking to set aside the order in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in O.S. No. 158 of 2019 dated 04.03.2025 passed by the leamed Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam (lor short 'Trial Court').

2. The petitioner herein is plaintitT and respondents herein as defendants in the suit in O.S. No. 158 of 2019. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are relerred to as in O.S. No. 158 of

3. The suit in O.S. No.158 of 2019 was filed by the ptaintiff seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession, and for consequential reliefs in respect of the suit schedule property. I.A. No.2 of 2025 is filed by the plaintiff under Order Xlll Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (for short 'CPC') in O.S. No.l58 of 2019 to receive the documents which were not filed at the time of fiting of suit. It is stated that plaintiff filed .l 2 photostat copies of pattadar pass books and other documents before the Trial Cour1, as he could not get certified copies of the same. The List of l)ocuments which he intended to file are: (i) Cr'rtified Copy of Pattadar Passbook bearing No.U- 218457 of Mrs. Jagarlamudi Syamala Devi, dated 2,9 t2.2011 (ii) Certified Copy of statement and map showing the particulars of land acquisition from Mrs. Jagarlamudi S),amala Devi in Survey No.l/1/14 to an extent of Acs.0-38 % guntas for excavation of NSP Canal, dated

29.t2.2017. (iii) Color Photographs (3) Numbers along with CD showing the falling of Mango Trees in the suit schedule property.

4. The det-endants opposed the said application contending that the lactum ot' thc plaintiff hling the photostat copies means that originals rvere in his custody, and he possessed originals at the time of institution ol'suit, thus, the filing of certified copies by a separate application for receiving and marking them as exhibits is not - 3 permissible. The pattadar passbook is not attested by the competent authority. It cannot be said that it is certified copy of original document. In fact, the original is with the Mrs. Jagarlamudi Syamala Devi, who is the vendor of the ptaintiff, and the certified copy was issued by the office of the Special Depuly Collector, Land Acquisition (IPT & Railways) Khammam, in not valid in [aw.

5. The Trial Court on considering the contentions of the parties passed order dated 04.03.2025 dismissing the I.A. No.2 of 2025 in O.S. No.l58 of 2019. The Trial Court recorded that Order XIII Rule I of the CPC deals with the production of original documents at or before the settlement of issues. However, now the suit is coming for marking of documents by the plaintiff, and at this stage, the plaintiff ought to have filed interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC. The plaintiff only prayed to receive document Nos.l to 3, however, list of documents shows as five (5). Contrary to same, there are six (6) documents annexed to the application. Further, it is nowhere mentioned in the afhdavit to receive 4ft and 5ft documents. Even, if the application is allowed, only document Nos.l to 3 will be received. 4

6. Further, thc -Irial Court recorded that document No. 1, i.e., attested copy of- pattadar passbook of Mrs. Jagarlamudi Shyamala Devi, is attersted by the Special Naib-Tahsildar, in the office of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Khammam. The plaintiff also filed attested copy of title deed of Mrs. Jagarl'lmucli Shavamala Devi without mentioning about the same in the affldavit. The Trial Court also recorded that as per the ls\,, certified copv or attcsted copy is issued when the authority is in possession c,lthc' same. Admittedly, the Naib Tahsildar, in the office of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Khammam, is not in possession of the pattadar passbook or title deed of Mrs. Jagarlamudi Syamala Devi, as the said authority only issues land acquisition proceedings for which the original pattadar passbooks as well as title deeds are not necessary. Flence, issuance of attested copy ol pattadar passbook and title deed by the office of the Special Dcputy Collector, Land Acquisition. Khammam, is nothing bui certilying photostat copies without originals which makes those documents invalid. 5 7 . Leamed counsel for the petitioner- plaintif f submitted that the Trial Court has committed error by passing the impugned order. At thc time of receiving documents, such exercise of testing the documents cannot be done by the Trial Court and the Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in giving its opinion on the validity of the documents-

8. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any error of law or j urisdiction. It was held by the Trial Court that the documents cannot be treated as certified copies as they were not attested by the competent authority. There are no merits in the revision and liable to be dismissed.

9. Heard Mr. Rama Sharana Sharmd, leamed counsel lor the petitioner, and Mr. M. Kiran Reddy, leamed counsel for the respondents, and perused the material on record.

10. The documents sought to be received by the 'I'rial Court in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in O.S. NO. 158 of 2019 are the attested copy of original pattadar passbook and title deed. The Trial Court held that 1 6 the authoritl' uho has issued the certified copies is not a competent person and, that copies have to be issued based on originals. That the attestation by the Naib Tahsildar, office of the Special Deputy Collector. Land Acquisition, Khammam, is nothing but certilying photostat copies without originals. I l. The plaintiff having tiled those documents is required to satisry the Clourt that those documents were issued by the competent authoriry-. Even in the present revision, the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff was not able to convince this Court that the certified copies were attested by the proper authority. The documents rvere attested by the Naib Tahsildar, in the Office of the Special Deputv Collector, Land Acquisition, Khammam, which is not a competent authority. l'hus, in the opinion of this Court, the order of the Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is rnade clear that the petitioner-plaintiff is always at liberty to file appropriate application for receiving documents either 1 original or certified copies attested by the competent authority befbre the Trial Court. It is needless to mention that such application shall be disposed ofl, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the civil revision petition stand closed. SD/. L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASISSTANT REGISTRAR I G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vl Additional District Judge at Khammam, Khammam District 2. One CC to SRl. P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. KIRAN REDDY MALLARAPU, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies MKN/PSL 8) ,#"" HIGH COURT DATED:221A712025 !. i t ORDER CRP.No.1439 of 2025 t ' ,; ,'1 r(.' \.,,c. . \ t i) 3 0 ffiI M a t\e=rgZ .+ DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION vr. 4,< /N