The High Court · 2025

1. Smt. lt/laddela Janaki, Wo. Late. lvladdela Swamy Aged about.S2 years, H. No.6-3-118 and'1 19, Prem Nagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 004.

2. I\iladdela Santhosh Kumar, S/o. Late Maddela Swamy Aged about.32 years, Suryanarayana, H. No. 6-3-1 1B and'1 '19, Prem Nagar, Khairaiabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 004.

3. lvladdela Sampath Kumar, S/o. Late. l/laddela Swamy, Aged about.31 years, Suryanarayana, H. No. 6-3-118 and119, Prem Nagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 004.

4. lVladdela Laxman Kumar, S/o. Late. It/addela Swamy Suryanarayana Aged about.29 years,H. No. 6-3-118 and119, Prem Nagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 004. . [i:espondents/Plaintiffs 5. MI. S. Shanti Naravana S/o JM K Swamy, Aged about.3t) years,R/o H. No 6_ 3-1 18and1 19 prem Nagar, Khairaiab;d:ijy,j;il;d, Trtansana ... Respon dent/Defend a nt No.5 IA NO 1 0F 2024 Petitron under section 151 cpc praying that in the ci r:rumstances stated in the affidavit fired ir support of the petition, tne Hign court may oe preaslJ to grant stay of all the fu(her proceedings in o.s. No. izg ot 1'.r.zo on t,e rite ot tne Hon'ble V Junior ci'rir Judge, city civir cou,t, Hyderabad pe:nding ctisposat ot tne Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petit oner(s):SRl. Thomas Lloyd Counsel for the Resp ondents: G. Hemachalam The Court made the.'ollowing: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA A.LISHSTTY CIVIL REVISION PBIITION No:2238 of 2024 ORDE'R: This Civil Revision Petition is frled assailing the Order dated 16.04.2024 in I.A.No.2045 of 2O23 in O.S.No.279 of 2O2O, passed by the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the application hled by the petitioners, under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of CPC, to receive documents, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Thomas Lloyed, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri G.Hemachalam, learned counsel for respondents.

3. The revision petitioners are defendant Nos. 1 to 4, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are plaintiffs arrd respondent No..5 is defendant No.5 in the suit.

4. Brief facts of the case which led to hling of the present revision petition are that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 hied a suit uide O.S.No.279 of 2019, against the petitioners and respondent No.S, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property; that revision petitioners entered appearance arld frled their written statement; that pending adjudication of the suit, the revision petitioners filed two applications uide I.A.Nos.2O45 and 2046 of 2023, one to receive the documents, viz., certihed copy of the sa-le deed bearing document No.408 of 1972 dated

14.02.1972, certihed copy of Gift Deed bearing document LN/l.J CR[..no.))]['sf 2924 '.t 2 No.2362 ol 2022 dated 27.17.2O22, Encumbran,re Certificate and Prope rty Tax Receipt arrd another to m€ rk the said documents as secondary evidence. Respondent Nc:;.1 to 4 filed counter res;isting the said application.

5. The I rial Court, on due consideration of the p:leadings and contentionr; put forth by both the parties, c.i smissed the application ulde impugned Order dated 16.04.2C 24, with an observatiorL that petitioners failed to give any e;rplalation for not producing the original documents and also fail,.:d to 1ay ar-ry foundation in their written statement for prodr_ c.ing certihed copies. The trial Court has also observed that petir ioners failed to satisfy 1.he requirement under Section 65(c) ;r, the tndian Evidence Act, before seeking permission to addu {.,3 secondarlr evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the presetr Revision is I-rled.

6. Learr ed counsel for the revision petitione rs/defendant Nos.1 to 4 submitted that revision petitioners har,e raised loan by pledginp. the original documents, due to which, they were unable to f ile the original documents along with l neir u,ritten statement before the tria.l Court. He further sub mitted that petitioners have categorically mentioned aborL the said documents in their written statement, basing on wbtch they are LNA.J CRP.No.2238 of 2024 3 claiming title over the suit schedule p(o_perty ald hence, they are very cruciai for proper adjudication of the case, however, the trial Court, without properly appreciating all these aspects, dismissed the application and therefore, he prayed to allow the present Revision Petition.

7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/plaintiffs submitted t.l.at petitioners failed to file certihed copies along with their written statement and did not give cogent ald plausible reasons for filing the said documents at belated stage. He further submitted that petitioners stated that they raised loan by pledging the original documents for the first time in the revision petition and did not give any explalation for the delay in hling the documents before the trial Court and therefore, the revision petitioners are not entitled to reiief sought for and accordingly, the Revisior, Petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Apropos the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, the issue that requires to be adjudicated in this Revision is whether the certihed copies of the aforesaid documents are admissibie in evidence and whether they can be marked as secondary evidence.

9. For adjudicating the said issue, it is relevalt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Appaiga Vs. -- *-1 LNA,J CRP.,r ,.2238 of 2024 4 Andinutht' (a-; Thangapandi and others,t whe r::in rvhen a simila-r' issue fe11 for consideration, it was observec. and held as hereunder: "-..The hollotuness and unsustainability of the san' objection would lrc reuealed on application of the releuatlt trouistons utlder tlrc Duidence Act arLd the Registration Act, 1')'.t8. It Ls ln this regard. that Sect.ions 77 and 79 of the Euidett.e Act, as etlracted earlier, assume releuance. Section 77 y,r.tuides for the production of certified copy of a public doc'.tment as secondc,.ry euidence tn proof of contents o/ its oigi.tttii. Section 79 is tlle prouision for presumptton as to the gentt neness of certi,fiea copies prouided the exbtence of a laut declaing certifiea copg of a doatment of such nature to be aclnrLssiltle' os euidenc=. When tlut be the position under tht aforesaid proubions. taking note of the fact that the do< ument in questiort is o registered sale deed, falling uithin the deJinition of a publtc doatment, the question is uhether ther( .txists onA laut declonng such certifted copg of o document as t:.dmLssibLe in euid'"-nce for the purpose of prouing the conlettts of its oiginal doanment. Sub-section (5) of Section [7 of the Registrutiott Act is the releuant prouision that pr'ti.'ides that certiJiea' copA giuen under Section 57 of the Regi:;tration Act shall be aclmissible for the purpose of prouing the !)rltents of its oiginal doatment. In this context, it is to be )rcted thot certifiec' copg issued thereunder is not a copg of lhe oiginal document, but i.s a copA of the registration entry utlttl:h is itself a copg cf the original and is a public.document uncier Section 74(2) ol the Euidence Act and Sub-section (5) thereoj , tankes it admiss ble in euidence for prouing the contents of it:; oigirnl. Th.ere rc no case that foundation for tetting in ,;e-condary ' uoz3 rNSC 83: LNI,J CRP.No-2238 of 2024 5 euidence uas not lairl and as noted earlier,,.both tlrc tial Court and the First Appelldte Court found it admissible in euidence. Thus, the cumulatiue elfect of the aforementioned. sections of the Euidence Act and Section 57(5) of the Registration Act ttould make the certtfied copg of tle so,le deed. No.1209/ 1928 dated 27.08.1928 o.;f SRO Andipatti, produced ds Drt.A1 admissible in euidence for the purpose of prouing the contents of the said oiginal document. Wlrcn this be the position in tlLe light of the specijLc prouisions rekned hereinbefore under the Euidence Act and the Registration Act, Lbe haue no hesitation to hold that the finding of the High Court that the certified copg of Ext.Al outing to the failure in production of the oiginal and prouing through an independent utitness is inodmbsible in euidence, is legally un-sustainable."

10. Thus, it is clear that certified copy of registered sa_le deed, being a public document falling under Section Z 4(21 of the Indian Evidence Act, is admissible in evidence for proving the contents of its original. Further, as per Section 6l of the Indial Evidence Act, the contents of the documents may be proved either by primary evidence or secondar5z evidence. Section 65(c) of Indian Evidence Act contemplates that the party must come with proper explanation as to under what circumstances he/she was prevented from producing the original documents.

11. In the present case, petitioners sought to receive certifred copy of the sale deed bearing document No.408 of 1972 dated

74.02.7972 and the gift deed bearing document No.2362 of LNA,J CRP 1;o.2238 of 2024 6 2OO2, date,l,2l.IL.2OO2, which are public documrnts, since the original documents were mortgaged with Balk irtr obtaining loal ald ar; such, the observation ofthe trial CourL that revision petitioners failed to satisfy the requirements under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act is not sustainable. Though the petitioners failed to hie the said documents al;n 13 with their written sta:,ement, they clearly laid foundation of lreir case uis- a-uis ttre said documents in paragraph Nos.11 tr 13 o[ their written stal ement, therefore, the contention of res;rondent Nos. 1 to 4 that .-evision petitioners did not lay any fir.Lndation for marking th: certified copies of the said documents rrs secondar5r evidence is incorrect and not tenable.

12. More,rver, petitioners are claiming right o.,er the suit schedule properqy basing on the said documents, t'rerefore, the said docun: ents are crucial for adjudicating the srr .t on merits. Further, in the suit, the evidence on behalf of I .aintiffs was completed rarid the matter was coming up for dele ndalts' side evidence a:-rd therefore, marking of the said d ::;uments as secondar5r t:vidence would not cause prejudice to t he plaintiffs ald they v,ould have al opportunity of cross-et( 'urrining the revision petitioners on the said documents. I,NA,J CRP.No.2238 of 2024 7

13. In vicw of thc foregoing reasons, .this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts of the case in proper perspective ald also failed to apply the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and hence, committed irregularity and illegality in passing the impugned order dismissing the apptication filed by the revision petitioners, which, therefore, is liable to Lre set aside.

14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 in I.A.No.2O45 of 2023 in O.S.No.279 of 2O2O passed by the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is set aside. Consequently, I'A'No'2045 of 2023 in O.S.No.279 of 2O2O stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

15. Miscellaneous closed. petitions pending, if any, shall stand SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN -- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' CTION OFFICER l To, 1 TheHon,bleVJuniorCivilJudge,CityCivilCourt,Hyderabad.(Withrecords if any)

2. OneCC to SRl. Thomas Lloyd' Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI G Hemachalam' Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies JA/PSL Yrv HIGH COURT DATED:01/09/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2238 of 201!4 5 I.<i )'tr. f iUfl 1 '.t '1 ta, I CIVIL RLVISION PE IIl l()N IS n l.t.Ow}lt) 6q(.4 ko*