The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K' LAKSHMAN IVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2O52 ()F 202s C ORDER: Heard Sri N.Ananda Rao, learned counsel lor Lhe petitiollcr and Ms T.Ravi Kanth Shivani, 1(lar-ned counscl appearing for resPondent.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed unde- Article 227 ctf Consli,ution of India challenging tht: ordcr dalcd 26.O5.2025 irr I.A.No.103 of 2025 in FCC)P \''r 149 ol 2024 ' passec by learned Judge Famiiy Court-Ctrn II Additional District .Iudge at Hanumakonda. .I'he Petitioner has hled the aforesaid I:(IOP No l49 ctl 3- 2O24 against the respondent herein for l:rrtrulntetlt ol marria.ge. The said OP is coming for trail 'lhe petitioncr herein has filed trvo applications in FCOP i ' " I'A No 103 ot 2O25 under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC tc-' rcceive cerl-ain docuntents, rvhich are mentioned in the affic avit specifically ald I.A.No.1O4 of 2025 under Section (rSi-B of Indian Evidence Act to permit her to lead seconditrv evidence for the prrrpose of marking doq'nloaded whatr; -zrpp mcssages (text screenshots) and photostat copies and pen drives etc' 2 -- -..-.1 Vide separate orders both dated 26.O5.2025, lcarned trail Court dismissed the said applications

4. It is relevant to note that petitioner hcrein has lilcd present Revision challenging the order datecl 26-O.5.2O2-5 in I.A.No.103 of 2025 and she did not lile anY Revision challenging the order dated 26.05.2025 in I.A.No.1O4 of 2025

5. Mr.Nadipally Ananda Rao, learned counsel lor the petiLioner would submit that pelitioner is going to challcnge the said order dated 26.O5.2025 in I.A.No. lO4 ot 2O25-

6. Petitioner has hled I.A No.103 of 2025 to receive the following documents I 2 3 4 5 6 Date t6-o3-2024 05 03-2024 Particulars of the Documents Original Notarized OPPudala Angikara Patram ofO udala Patram Photo stat Co Photographs (24) along with 4 Pen (Dr.Naryana Reddl' drives Consultation) Photo Stat Copies of Morphing (3), filed in FIR No. 314 of 2024 Photo graphs (ipads/ I phone) (No. ol 31 12,2023 P Photo Stat Copies Text Messages to Klara Skin Clinic 5 and other clinic/ hos itals for ob trials No. of s. 16) Downloaded Copies of Flight Tickets (Eight different 6 Dates) (No of P 22 07-2024 27-07 2023 2-1 09 2023 s. 13 s.8 Prescription r,i' O9-O2 2024 1 23 12 2023 30 02 2024 15 07-2024 1 L7 01 2024 05 02 2024 l l l I i 3 7 8 9

11. .) 1

13. Psychologice:J Docf or llolistic Downloaded copy of Mercedesm,.r location ma of the car Copy of Aadhaar o[ Dorvnloaded Petitiouer Original Dhrithi rvelhress Ortgir-r zrl Doctor Prescription of Dr Vasavi s Hospital Center for Fertilitr and Birth O rigin al Doctor Hospital, Adit_va zLlong with requisition i cxamination oI wounded Photostat Copy Docto Prescription of Androcare (No. o s6l iginal Doctor prescription o Prescription of Hanumakondir for orl i l 'l I i I i I I 15 oa.07 2024

16. 4I s. 20 15 04-2024 LB t2-2024 Shararrva Clinics Certified Copy of Charge Sheet Naram oppuiolu Swadheena Panchanama FIR, Case Dairl.. complaint ad statement of witness examined by police of Respondent before the p.S.. Halumakonda No. of cd Copy of Plaint filed by the Certifi ndcnt along with Counter filed Re spo by tl-re petitioner herein (No.. of pgs l3) Draft Copy of O.P prepared by the Respondent herein D ownloaded Copy of Order in Crime 05-1t-2024 Pctition No. 6456 of 2024 (No. of Pgs s) Photostat Copy of FIR, vide FIR No 259 of 2024 along with complaint 19. Dorvnloaded Copy of Screen Short of Text Messages (No. of pgs 27) (other Differcnt Dates Ccrtifi ed Copy of Telalgana Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of Telangana, vide File No. CC) Ml19r 2024 "26 16-12-2023 tzs-o4-2025 -o3-2024 05-2024

20. I 4 -..,1 7 . In the afhdavit hled in support of said I.A., petitioner has specifically stated that said documents ane relet'ant and non filing of the said documents along wlth FCOP is neither intentional nor willful B. Respondent has fried counter opposing the said application contending that petitioner has not mentioncd thc reasons for receiving the said applications and eilso in r.r,hose possession the said documents are, in terms ol ()rdcr VII Rule 14 CPC and she has not mentioned the rezrsons for not hling the said documents along with the FCOP Vide impugned order dated 26.05.2024, learned Famil,v Court dismissed the said application holding that thc rrial Court has already dismissed I.A.No.lO4 of 2025 - There[ore, no purpose will be served by ailowing I.A.No.103 of 202.5. g. Perusal of the order dated 26.O5.2025 io I.A.No lO4 ot 2025 would revea] that learned tria-l Court has disrnissed the said application holding that petitioner herein failed to comply with Section 65-8 of Indian Evidence Act. She sought permission to receive the electronic records i e , pho[ostat copies of text messages etc. To receive the said electronic records, she has to file certificatc mentioned 5 under Section 65-8 (4) of Indian Evidence .Act- In the absenc,: of such certificate, secondaq/ eviden:e of electronic records / co mputcr output is inadmissible in e, idence .

10. Li:arncd counsel for the pctitioner woul,l submit that there r; no need of submitting certihcate zrl.rng rn ith the applicalion under Section 65 B of the lndiarr l:lvidence Act. He has e so placcd reliance on several judgm,, nts of Honble Suprenrc Court and diflercnt High Courts. lJ.;t'e'",er, he has to placc lcliance on thr: principle laid doir n in the said judgments u,hiie challcnging the order datecl 26.O5.2025 in I.A No. lO4 ol 2025. I 1. As rliscussed supra, petitioner herein has filed the eforesai<l I.A.No.I 03 <tf 2024 under Order '.'ll Rule 14 of CPC. r-)rder V[[ of CPC deals with the plarn t and Rule 14 u,ith production of relevant documents by a pl :rintiff.

12. Tee said provision is extracted beioq,: "Or<ler 7, Rulc 14 of the Code of Civil Proc::clure (CPC) marrdates thal a plaintiff suing on a docum()-I[ in their pos:;ession must produce it with the plaint arLd deliver it for iiling, u,hite plaintiffs relying on other dc,:,.rments as evidcnr:e must list thcm in a list annexed to the plaint. Any document that is not produced or lislcd without cou-t leavc cannot be used as evidence :Lr the trial, 6 '.1 emphasizing thc importance ol timcly and propcr documcnt presentation". 1 3 . Therelore, the lollowing two aspects are to be considered rvhile considering I.A.No.103 of 2025.

1. Receiving of documents

2. Marking of the said documents 14 - For the purpose of receiving documents, petitioner has to explain [he relevance of the said documents with regar-d to 1i-s in FCOP No.l49 of 2024. If the petitioner asserts with rcgard to relevance of the said documents ald if the trial Court satisfies with the said reasons m-entioned by the petitioner, it has to allow the said application and receive the said documents.

15. With regard to marl.:lng of the said documents, the trial Court has to consider with regard to its admissibility etc. While receiving the documents, the trial Court cannot say that they are not relevalt and they are not admissibie in evidence. The trial Court has to consider the relevancy of thc said documents '"r,hile considering the application to receive the documents. Without considering the said aspects, viclc impugned order dated 26.O5.2025, tlne learncd I l I I I I I l I 7 trial Court dismisscd the said applicatiol filed by the petitioner vidc [.A_No. l03 of 2025 to recei,.e the aforesaid docuntents. Therefore, impugned order is prassed without consirlering the purport of Order Vll Rule 14 of CpC. In vieu. ,tf the aloresaid discussion, thc imp ugned order is iiable to bc set aside. [t is set aside accordin,lll1.. The matter is rernanded back to the Jr-rdge Fzrmih. Court_Cum il Additi,rnal District Judge, Halumakonda u.jrh a clirection to decide I.A.No.103 of '2025 in fCOp No. l4l) ol 2024, afredn bv putting thr: petitioner and respondent c n notice alld affording t lrem arr oppor{ u n ity.

16. Lezu-ned counsel for the rcspondent pla.ced reliance on the juCgmer-rt of the Honblc Supreme Cortr,_ reported in Biraji @ Brijraji And Another vs. Suryrr pratap And Othersl, -judgmer-rt of this Court in Ch.Roopra.i vs. Mumtaz Ahmecl Khan and Others2 and the order :ra.ssed by this Court in CRP.No. lB7 I of 2023.

17. l'he facts of the present case are differt:nt to the facts in the judgments referred above. -.\ ' 1zo2o; to scc' ru,.r '2022 SCC Onlrnc l S l,16S \-!l B

18. In the prese nt case, lcarned Family Court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects. However, liberty is granted to petitioncr to file a better affidavit in I.A.No. lO3 of 2024 and liberty is also gran ted to respondent to file counter to the said aflidavit.

19. In the light ol the above discussion, this Civil Revision Pclition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. M iscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall star-rd closed SD/- A JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR a SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1_ The Judoe. Familv court cum ll Additional District Judge at Hanumakonda- 2. One CC"to Sri Njdipally Ananda Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Trichnopoly Ravi Kanth Shivani, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies NVB/ABK D HIGH COURT DATED:0310912025 t\ i_ ._/ : '. ,..i ,L i- rL .*st '( (rr l-'..,;i !.t ;! r!:'rt l. :/ .,y -fl 9. ORDER CRP.No.2052 of 2O2S DISPOSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETil ION u o\