High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

2. B. Laxmanachary (Died), per LRs. 4 to 6. 3. B. Krishnamachary, (defendant No.1 and 2 died per LRs. 7 to '10) 4. Smt. Vimalamma, W/o. Late Laxmanachary, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No.'1 3-6-4641N441A, Thalia Gadda, Hyderabad. 5. B. Krishnamachary, S/o. Late B.Laxmanchary, Aged about 40 years, Occ.Service, R/o. H.No. 1 3-64641N441A, Thalia Gadda, Hyderabad.

6. B. Raju, S/o. Late B.Laxmanachary, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Service, R/o H. No. 1 3-6-464/tu44lA, Thalia Gadda, Hyderabad.

7. B. Srinivasa Chary, S/o. Late B. Laxmanachary, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service, R/o, H.No.13-6-464!N44lA, Thalia Gadda, Hyderabad. 'i:.-

8. B. Srikanth Chary, S/o. Late Krishnamachary, Aged abor-t 45 years, Occ. Service, R/o. H.No.5-1 -1 08/1 5 ward No.25,Vallabh Nagar, li4ahaboobnagar.

9. B. Srinivas Chary, S/o. Late Krishnamachary, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Service, R/o. 5-1-108/1 5, Ward No.25, Vallab Nagar,Mal'raboobnagar. '10. B. Chakri, S/o. Late B. Krishnamachary, Aged about 45 )'ears, Occ. Service, R/o. 5-1-'108/'15, Ward No.25, Vallabh Nagar, Mahaboobnagar. (The respondents 2 to 10 are not necessary parties to th s petition) ...RESPONDI-N TS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir,;urnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings rn O.S.No.04/2009 on file of the Junior Oivil Judge, Parigi, At Ranga Reddy pending disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V RAGHUNATH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI KRISHNA MURTHY DEVARAKONDA The Court made the following: ORDER T}IE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISI ON PETITION N o.16 I 4 of2019 ORDER This clivii Revisiou Pctition is filed b1' the petitioner - respondent - Cc t-endarit No.3 (died) represented by her legal representatives - petitioners 2 :rnd 3 (rvho rvere brought on record as per the orders in I'A'No'3 of 2025 dated rri.0i.1025) aggri*ed b1'rhc order dated 03 04 10i9 passed in l'A'No'278 of 20 l8 in O"S.No.4 ol 2009 by the leamed Junior Civil Judge' Parigi' Rangareddy District ?..l.A.No.276of20l6isfiledhytherespontlent\No'l-petitioner-plaintiff .rrrticl S,-:ction 65(l of lndian E-' iiieL-rce Ac:' i872 r'ead with Section l5l of CPC seckinu. permission to leatj secondary evidence by producing photocopy of the ac knorvledgement of the sale consideration of the suit house by defendants I alrd 2, dated 12.02.2008' -1. Th.o said petition was allorvecl b1'the leamed Junior Civil Judge' Pargi at Rangaleddy Districr on 03'04 20I9'

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner - respondent - defendart No'3 prcl-erted this revision. 2 DT.GRR^ J crp 161-{_21) I9 Heard Sri Vijay Ashrith, learned counsel represec[ir1q Sri V.Raghunath. 5 leamed counsel for the petitioners on record and Sri P D.'fenncti, treaued counsel representing Sli D.Krishna lvludty, leamed cour ser for the respondc;-rt No.1 - plaintiff on record

6. Leamed counsel lor the petitioners contendec that the trial court passed the impugned order erroneously on conjecfures. Withou.. lhi. rcspondent No" I - plaintiff substantiating his claim, the trial courl ought n(,i tt have rrllowcd the petition by referring to other documents and pieading' in the plaint * hile adiudicating a petition under Section 65(c) of the hrciian I r,lrlence Ac1. I871. 1i was an illegal order and relied upon the Division Be;rc'r jutknrenl of' tht Hon'ble Apex Court in Manisha Mahendna Gala and Others v. Shalini Bhagwan Avartrarnani and Others 7 . Learned counsel for the respondent No.l plalntif1' on rhe other haltd contended that the respondent No.1 plaintiff flled 'h:r sr.rit for specilic: perfbrnrance of contract. The defendants I and 2 sold i1 c ;uit prcpertv to the plaintiff and received the sale consideration on diifereni oc;asions and passed receipts and ackqorvledgments admitting the receipi ol:re sale ccnsideraiion frorn time to time in fa'or of the piaintiff. one such ackrr,r,, iedgn.rent passeci b1.' defendants 1 and 2 dated 12.02.2008 admitting the receipt of Rs.45.000/- bv each of them u.as lost in the rqlcktrs createC bl tl:., .1. \, 'endarr:. and their I I I I I I I I t I I i / 3 Dr.GRR. J crp_l614-2019 hencht]len.Inspiteofdiligentsearch,thepiaintifTcouldnottraceitoutandlost it tbrever. However, the respondent No' 1 - plaintifT rvas in posscssion of a photocopy of it and as such frled the petition seeking permission to lead secondary evitience of the transaction dated 12 02'2008' The trial court on consideringthattherespondentNo.,lplaintiflhadstatedaboutthelossofthe saiddocurr-rentinhisplaintitselfandthatthepetitionerhadalsofrledother leccipts. which were originaL and starrpcd' allowed the petition' There rvas no i'-'5aliL1 ol irrlirr-nit1 in the order of the triel coufi to set asidr'the same and pri i,ed to dismiss the Civil Re"'ision Petition

8. I)eruscd the record. t)'l.herespondentNo'lplaintiil.tlierlthesuitlorspecificperlormanceof .oxlractbasingonanoralagreelTlenLtopurchasetlresuitscheciulepropeny' rr irich rvas a residential house lor a consideration of Rs' i '00'0001-' llaint, the plaintiff paid a total sum ol Rs'90'000i- to defcndants I and 2 on diffelent occasions ranging frorn 1997 to 2008 to-wards part pavl ent of the sale consideratrorr, but the defendants I and 2 sold the plopedy ro delendant No'3' As per the l.heplaintilTfurtherstatedinhisplaintthatLhedelendantNo.3colludedwith ciefendat.rts I and 2 and dernolished the house bearing No'3-16' an adjoining house of the schedule property which also belonged to hirn and stole the building materiai and other rnaterhl'.fept in it' On coming to know about the A Dr.GRR,,I crp l6l,l 2019 highhanded actions o1'the del-endants anil their henchmen tlre pla intiff rushed to the spot. 'l-here rvas scuffle. people gathered there. -l.i: rlaintifl shou,ecl the papers to the elders rvho qathered there includin-e rtc dclcniiants. t.he defendants stole thc'cceipt dated 12.02.200g in rhe melci. ihe plaintifl'iiici not noticc it due to rhe srarnpede deiiberatcly created by th- cctl,ndants ancl tireir henchrnen. 'l'he plainiill reccnrly noticed about the the ri .rfl thr,eceipt dared

12.02 2008. I{or^'evc-r. a photocopy of the samc remainc.i ir his posscssior. as such sougitt pelnlssior oithe Court to lead secondary e\ r.irllc.. i u. I he det'endants i and .r crenied in their ,"r,rirten s1i iernert tha,r rhc-rc ..r:,,s anv a{:reemenr betqeeir them and the plaintiff. Thel'cont,r,r'ed 1l,.ar rhe plairiiii had not filed anl proor'.f the sale agreement: Iriling or' he Xer.or coo_y o1'thc receint ani pleading ihat he lost the origrnal itseri vrourrl .jj-tr\i i lc ir inte ,rr,.rr, to grah the suir. .l he lcciripts rilccl b), thc plaintil'l ivere Cr, il 3(1 r),lr oJ-r rljl.lc;.enr datcs and thev u'ould rot suppon the case. The suir \!as noi maintair*rbie tire saie ;ig.ee rrrent. Mere filing of the r.eceipts r,r: rcl ,.t ,.:orllr.irr i._r 'u'ithoiri nleadings of the suit o1- the plairtiff-. They lurther c(.,:r.,rirdccr tirai the ..1;ir scheduie propcrtl rva-* sold by them to defendant No.-: a td possession ivas de.iiv.'rcd and pray.ed io Liisrniss the suit ivith exernp.lary co.)t:.

11. A separzrte wlitren statement was fi led by deiendant 1...r,.3 ! ./', / ,1 5 Dr.GR& J crp-I614_2019 As seen from the pleadings, there was no written sale agreement between t2 the parlies. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific perfofinance basing on an olal ag.eernent. The receipts filed are also perlaining to the period ranging frorn i997 to 2008 on different dates. The petition was llled under Section 65(c) of thc Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 15 I of CPC se.'king perrnission to file a photocopy of the acklorvledgmenl of the sale consideration oj'the suit hoLrse b;,defendarts 1 and 2. dated 12.02.2008. The suit was of the i,ear 2009. 'lhe petition u,as filed in the year 2018 i.e. nine years after filing the srit. The l-.iaint also would not disclose when the scufile took piace betu,'een the pl;intiii'and def-eldants and rvhen the plainriff haci losL the said r-eceipt. I -1. Learned counsel for the revision petitiopers contended that when the plaintitf has got number ol receipts, his stating that he lost only one receipt dated 12.02.2008 in the ruckus was also a deliberare storv created by the plaintiff iirr the pufirose ol filing the suit. The defendants I and 2 never admittcd w'ith regard to issuance of receipt dated i 2.02.2008. i-+. 'lhe ohotoco;ry of the receipt rvould not colue rinder secondary evidence, as there rvas no original document with anybody. If there was any document in oliginal or produced before anv authority, secondary evidence could be allowed rvith regard to the said dcicument. The plaintiff though pleaded in the plaint that defendants I and 2 had stolen the siidtceipt, had not lodged any repofi betbre ......'." b Dr.CRR, J mp 1614_?019 the Police for lts recovery before liling tire suit" No foun<ia; on was laicl b1'the respondent No. I plaintiif to lead secondary evidence. fh: phofocopy rvas a suspicious document, q,hich ought not to have been penn tted b-v. the trial coLrtl to be brought into evidence

15. Consideling the t-acts of the case, as the exisrcr,re, ex!'critiori md authenticity o1'the original docurnent was not establishr:d by the t-cspondeni No.1 - plaintiff b:tirre sceking permission to lead secondaly l)vidence and as the respondent No.1 pia.rnLiii t'ailed to satisiactoriiy prcve tl l-, Jrr i-,;:igr..i:ri lr.:ir-' was lost, destro.ved or urFavailable u,ithout his fault excep :r aLing,rri i\ L'r'nrrn! in the piaint and petition and as the photocopv is not an au,.iri: iltica 1.ci clt:cuirent. allorving the same to be brought into evidence by the triai cout1 is ccnsideled as an erroneous orcii--

16. Ihe Hon'bie Ape:< Court in Nlanisha Nlahendra C:rla and (Jthers r Shalini Bhagn,an Alatramani and Others (cited sr,rpra) al:o obse;:r'e<i in piiir No.36 that the photoccrp.,, of a document is inadmissible in i:r' dcnce

17. Hence, it is considered fit to allo',v the revision by setLing aside iire oicicr dated 03.04.2019 passc<i in 1.A.No.278 of 2018 in O.S.tio.4 o1'1009 by tht leamed Junior Cir,ii Ju{ie, Pargi, Rangareddy District. 7 Dr.GRR, J crp_1614_2019 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed sctting aside thc order 18 cjated 03.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.278 of 2018 in O.S.No.4 of 2009 by the leanred Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, Rangareddy District. No order as to costs As a sequcl. rniscelianeous applications pending in this petition, if any, shlll sLanci closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PARIGI, AT RANGA REDDY DISTRICT 2. One CC to SRl. V RAGHUNATH Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. KRISHNA MURTHY DEVARAKONDA Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies SS/gh YY I t I i ! l \ _-.-:--'.';:--.:* /-', ;,r,' ' r',iC ,/ ', ',': ' \-,^ \. ^^-'\,. ) 83 sLP 2$21 \.7 \.: \. . HIGH GOURT DATED:1 310612025 ORDER CRP.No.1614 of 2019 ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS C "ed"A f,N