The High Court · 2025

1. M/s. Cal Sree Construction Services Pvt Ltd, A company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its regd. office at Flat No.801-, Dwarakamai Apartments, Navodaya Colony, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad-500 073, rep, by its Managing Director, Sri. Sree Rama Murthy Vamaraju, S/o, late V.Chandrasekhara Rao, age 78 years.

2. Sree Rama Murthy Vamaraju, S/o. late V.Chandrasekhara Rao, age 78 years' Occ.- Business, R/o. Flat No.801, Dwarakamai Apartments, Navodaya Colony, Yellareddyguda. Hyderabad-500 073 ,.,PETITIONERS AND '1. Dr. Raghavendra Shivane, S/o. late V.Shamrao, Ag_e 70 ..ye-ars, ..Occ.- Businesl, R/o. Flat No.9'1 , "Primrose Tower", "Seren Colony", Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500 032.

2. M.Naqariuna, S/o. not known to the petitioners, Age 59 years, Occ.- Business, R/o. latfioor, Curry Leaves, Vasantha Vally. Kondapur, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to dtay all further proceedings rn O.S. No. 813 of 2011 before the Ld. XXVI Addl. Chief Judge. City Civil Court, Hyderabad till disposal of the Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Vadeendra Joshi Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V. Malli Babu The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE P.SREE SUDHA CI\IIL REVISION PETITION No. 2545 of 2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is frled aggrieved by the order, dated27.06.2023, passed in I.A.No.2216 of 2022 in O.S.No.813 of 2011 by the learned XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. O.S.No.S13 of 2O1l is hled by respondent No.1/plaintifffor recovery of money against petitioners and respondent No.2. During the pendency ol the suit, I.A.No.22 16 of 2022 was filed by petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to exhibit true photocopy of the blank pronotes and cheques already filed as secondary evidence on behalf of defendant Nos.l and 2. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the application on 27 .06 .2023. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the petitioners herein hled the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the trial Court erred in . not considering the established principles of law 2 and passed the impugned order contrary to the principles enshrined under Section 63 r/w 65 of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872. h is the case of the petitioners that the blank pronote and blank cheque under Exs.AS to AB are tampered by the respondent No.1/plaintiff as the original was destroyed and therefore, secondary evidence in the form of a mechanical copy was being produced. It is further stated that plaintiff in fact inserted the name of the ciefendant No.3 without the knou'ledge of the petitioners arrd the same being the disputed question of fact ought to be decided only at the final disposal of the suit' The existence of burden of proof or absence thereof has no relevance at the stage of admission o[ evidence. lt is an undisputed fact that there was a compromise award dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. Petitioners requested the respondent No'1 to hand over the blank promissory notes and cheques obtained by respondent No. I for the due performanee of development agreement' If the photocopies were admitted through the secondary evidence, there will be no prejudice caused to respondent No' 1/plaintiff' Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court. 3

5. Defendant No. 1 is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Defendant No.2 is the Managing Director of defendant No.l Company. plaintiff and others are the owners and possessors ol the land admeasuring Ac.36.31 guntas in Sy.Nos.44O,44t and,454 of Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Del.endant No.2 representing defendant No. 1 Company requested the plaintiff and others to sell an extent of Ac.10.20 guntas and to give remaining extent of Ac.26.l1 guntas for development. Accordingly, they entered into agreement of sale cum_G.p.A and a memo of understating dated O2.OT.2007 with defendant No.l Company and further entered into a development agreement and memorandum of understanding dated 12.07.2OO7. Defendant Nos. I and 2 paid Rs.5,56,23,OO0/- to the plaintiff and others. Defendant No.2 in the capacity as Managing Director of the defendant No. I Company have executed two demand promissory notes [.or a sum of Rs.2O,OO,OOO/- and Rs.IO,0O,OOO / on O|.O2.2O08 in favor of defendant No.3. Defendant Nos. r and 2 issued t,*,o post-dated cheques for Rs.20,OO,0O0/- and Rs.tO,O0,0OO/-. No development was taken by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Matter was ref-erred to 4 Arbitration A compromise award dated 18'O2'2010 was passed by the tribunal.

6. The suit is filed for recovery of Rs'20'97'OOO/- with interest from defendant Nos.l and' 2' During the pendency of the suit' I.A.No.2216 of 2022 was liled by defendant Nos'1 and 2 seeking permission to exhibit true photocopy of the blank pronotes and cheques. It is stated that Dxs'AS to A8 were tampered documents and petitione rs came to know about the same through the legal notice clatecl 19.10-2011 under Bx'A15 and they denied their liability for payment of suit amount to the plaintiff by the reply notice dated 20.11 '2o 11 under Ex'A16' Photocopies and biank promissory cheques handed over by plaintiff were already hled and plaintiff reported nil cross-examination and plaintiff refused toad.mittheSame,assuchtheywerenotadmittedinthe evidence, as they were obtained mechanically' They are relevant and necessary for proper adjudication and thus requested for receiving the same as secondary evidence but it was denied by No. 1 . Plaintiff stated the he never handed over respondent photocopies of pronotes and cheques to petitioners and thus req\-rested the court to dismiss the petition' 5 7 . The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides and also extracting the provision under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, dismissed the petition. The trial Court observed that the name of defendant No.3 is also shown in the blank promissory note. Further, it was also observed that the documents marked under Exs.AS to A8 on behalf of p.W.l vvere compared with the copies which were sought to be marked as secondary evidence was appurrent that the documents which were the Xerox copies sought to be marked on behalf of petitioners do not contain the name of defendant No.3 in whose favour they u,ere issued, as such it cannot be said that they are exact copies of Exs.AS to A8 and accordingly dismissed the petition. petitioners contended that the trial Court erred in comparing the same. Thc name of defendant No.3 is mentioned in the said documents, in fact they came up before the court and liled the photocopies of the ) \ blank promissory notes and cheques which were already hled, as such the trial Court rightly compared the documents with their photocopies. The name of defendant No.3 shoutd reflect in the ) ) secondaqr evidence also, as such the trial Court rightly held that they are created and cannot be accepted as secondar)z evidence. 6 Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court.

8. In rhe result, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court dated 22.06.2023, passed in I.A.No.22t6 of 2022 in O.S.No.S13 of 2OLl. There shall be no order as to costs. Misceliancous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. .l ,TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI REGISTRAR ASSIS CTION OFFICER To, VH/gh 1 The XXVI Addit,onat Chief Judge,_ City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ? 9n. CC to Sri Vadeendra .tostr", AJv6ciie'fopUbi' 9 9n. CC ro Sri V Malti Babu, AU"o""t" tO'p'Utt"", 4. Two CD Copies .o- I I lHE S I4 ( c o o 2OFEB 2W5 I . ,.i1_) HIGH COURT DATED: 03101t2025 ORDER CRP.No.2545 ot 2023 DISMISSING THE CRP {w