The High Court · 2025

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 to suspend the operation and effect orders passed in l'A'No'41 of 2025 in o.s.No.67 0f 2010, dated o9lo6t2o25 0n the file of the Additional senior civil Judge, Wanaparthy, pending disposal of the above CRP' petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated oglo6t2}25 passed in I.A.No. 425 of 2024 in o.s.No.67 of 2010, on the file of the court of the Additional senior civil Judge, wanaparthy' Between: M. Raghunath Reddy, S/o Late M. Chinna Narayan Reddy, Aged about 58 V."r.,b"c. Agrl. Rlo t<atvarala Village, Weepangandla Mandal, Wanaparthy District. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No. 1(PLAINTIFF) AND

1. Mala Ayyanna (Since died) Per L'Rs 2. Mala Balaswamy, s/o tVlala suguri, Aged about 70 years, occ' Retired 3. Mala Balamma, wo late Mala Ayyanna, Aged about 67 y€rs, occ' EmPloYee and Agriculture, Agriculture,

4. Mata surender, s/o late Mala Ayyanna, Aged about 47 yeats, 069' Employee' 5. Mala Ravi, s/o late Mala Ayyanna, Aged about 35 years, occ' Agriculture' 6.V.riaya,D/olateMalaAyyanna,Agedabout45years,occ.Agriculture, 7. Smithra, D/o late Mala Ayyanna, Aged about 43 years occ' Agrialture, 8.Surya'D/olateMalaAyyanna,Agedabout3gyears,Occ.Agriculture' All are R/o Weepangandla village and Mandal, wanaparthy District' Respondents/Petitioners(Defendants 2' 5 to 10) g. The LAO, Special Deputy collector, RLISP Pebbair, wanaparthy District'

10.The District Collector, Mahabubnagar, now at Wanaparthy. (Respondents 9 and 10 are not necessary parties to this CRp) (RespondentslRespondents 2 & 3) lA NO: I CtF 2O2S Petition under Section. 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affioavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation and effect orders passed in l.A.No.42S of 2024 in O-S-No.67 of 2010, dated OglOOt2O25 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, pending disposal of the above CRP, pending disposal of the above CRtr. Counsel ftrr the Petitioner: Sri S. S. R. Murthy Counsel fcrr the Respondents 2 to 8: Sri N. Ashok Kumar The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ("-"r THE HOIT'BLE SEIRI JUSTICE AI{IL KUMAR JUI(ANTI and 2531 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.2528 oi 2025 is filed by revision petitioner/respondent No. 1 /plaintiff aggrieved by the order, dated 09.06.2025, passed in I.A.No.41 of 2O2S in O.S.No.67 of 2OLO by Additional Senior Civil .Iudge, Wanaparthy.

2. C.R.P.No.253l of 2025 is filed by revision petitioner nggrieved by the order, datecl Og.06.'2025, passed in I.A.No.425 of 2024 in O.S.|1o.5? of 2O 10 by Actditional Senior Civil Judge, \,Vanaparthy.

3. Heard Mr. S.S.R.Murthy, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Mr. N.Ashok l(urnar, learned counsel for respondents in both the civil revision petitions.

4. Both the civil revision petitions arise out of the same issue/matter, they are being heard together.

5. I.A.No.4L of 2025 in O.S.No.67 of 2OIO was fited by defendants/respondents herein, seeking to re-open the suit t{\ 2 JAK, J CRPs 2528 2531 2025 for tht: purpose of marking the documents i.e., ROR file in support of their claim for adjudication of the suit.

6. Ilarlier C.R.P.No.31O9 of 2023 came to be filed before this Court and a learned Single Judge of this Court by order rlated 19.O2.2024 dismissed the revision petition. The relevant portion of the order is as follows: "8. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatcchala Gounder a. Antlnigu Viswesaraswami and V.P.Temple (AIR 2003 SC 4548), observed that the objection as to admissibility of the documents may be classified into two classes, il an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the sarne to be irregular or insuflicient.

9. The Apex Court also observed as under:- "In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as a.n exhibit."

10. In the present case it falls under first case where the document itself is inadmissible, therefore it can be excluded at any stage of the suit as documents in 3 JAK, J CRPs 2528-2s31-2025 present case are inadmissible. Admittedly these documents are certified copies of photostat copies, as such, the trial Court rightly demarked the same' There is no illegality in the order of the lower court and there are no merits in the civil Revision Petition and the civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. If really original documents are available in the custody of authorities they can request the Court to summon the authority to prove the same." 7 . Subsequently, two more c.R.Ps bearing Nos.221 1 and 2139 of 2024 c€une to be filed and this court by common order dated 04.09.2024 disposed of the revision petitions. The following is th.e relevant portion of the order: "1O. Revision petitioners filed t-A.Nos' [27 and 128 of 2024 for summoning the concerned offircials at the stage of arguments seeking their presence to confront the xerox copies of certified copies (which were demalked Exs.B46 and E}15). It is recorded by the court in the order is as follows: "The Tahasildar, Weepangandla even failed to produce the frle pertaining to issuance of certifred copies of the sale deed and the tax receipts. Therefore, now summoning of the oflicials who allegedly issued the certified copies of ttre documents does not serve any purpose. Moreover, when the original documents are not available anywhere, and even the applicant himself i'e', Kyatham Papaiatr, had not produced the original d.ocuments before the Tahasildar concerned at the time of regularization, marking of the certifred copies, by confronting the same to oflicials, which documents were already demarked by this Court, by treating them as secondar5r evidence, does not arise' Such a course of action is not permissible in traw"' , I t 4 JAK, J CRPs 2528 2531 2025 1 1. This Court, having perused the common order of trial Court, is of the considered opinion that once documents were demarked by an appropriate Court and order of trial Court confirmed by this Court in C.R.p.No.31O9 of 2023, the question of considering them as secondar5r evidence does not arise and such course of action is not permissible in law for confronting the Exhibits with oflicers in the absence of original documents. During the course of submissions, it was submitted that revision petitioners be permitted to make an application with regard to the documents i.e., exhibits before the Court to prove the relevancy of the said documents for proper adjudication of the case as their rights would be effected. 12. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that if revision petitioners are permitted for making an application, liberty be granted to the respondents to raise all the objections as per law. It is open to revision petitioners to make an application before the trial court if advised, within a period of two (02) weeks from thc date of receipt of a copy of this order and the trial court shall pass appropriate orders within a period of four (04) ureeks in accordance with law." [\rrsuant to the directions in c.R.p.Nos.22l1 and 2L39 of 2024, dated o4.o9.2o24, I.A.No.41 of 2o2s in o.s.Nc,.67 of 2o1o came to be filed. Learned Additional B. senior civil Judge, wanaparthy, on 09.06.2025 passed the follorving order: '9. Coming to the contention of the respondent that lhe present petition is time barred as per the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Telangana. This court perused the Order Copy of the Hon'ble i{igh Court of Telangana. As per t}re Hon'ble High Court rrrder, dated: O4-O9-2O24: "During the course of submissions, it was submitted that revision petitioners be r' / /.:+. 5 JAK, J CRPs 252E 2531 2025 permitted to make an.application with regard to the documents i.e., exhibits before the Court to - prove the relevancy of the said documents for proper adjudication of the case as their rights would be effected." Accordingly, the petitioners filed an Interlocutory application seeking pernission to mark the entire ROR file bearing No.B/ROR/9O62/1998 within the prescribed time. But subsequenfly, the present petition is frled to reopen the main suit. There is no restriction or order of the Honble High Court that the petitioners cannot llle any other interlocutory application except the one permitted by the Honble High Court. Either of the parties have a legal right to file interlocutory applications for meeting the ends of justice. Therefore, the present petition frled under Sec. 151 of CPC for reopening the suit is not time baried. Hence, the contention of the respondent is hereby not considered. 10. Now coming to the point whether the suit can be reopened for considering I.A. No. 425 of 2024? The respondent counsel contended that the entire ROR file cannot be marked as it consists of the demarked Ex.B15(a) and 846 ',vhich is impermissible in law and hence, the suit cannot be reopened. The petitioners counsel submitted that if the suit is not reopened the petition filed by them in pursuance of the orders of Hon'ble High court would be defeated and the petitioners valuable rights would be effected.

11. Sec. 151 ofCPC reads as under: "Nothing is this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessarJr for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the procesS of the Court." Further, as per Section 151 of CPC the Court has the authority to take any action necessary to do complete justice, even if it's not explicitly stated in the CPC. This includes reopening a case for further evidence or recall of witnesses, even after the trial has been closed and posted for arguments. 6 JAK, J CRPs_2528 2531 2025

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K.Velusamy rrs. N.Palaanisamy, 2OIl (11) SCC 27S held as follows: "The amended provisions of the Code contemplate and expect a trial court to hear the arguments immediately after the completion of evidence and then proceed to judgment. Therefore, it was unnecessary to have €rn express provision for re-opening the evidence to examine a fresh witness or for recalling any witness for further examination. But if there is a time gap between the completion of evidence and hearing of the arguments, for whatsoever reason, and if in that interregnum, a part5r comes across some evidence which he could not lay his hands earlier, or some evidence in regard to the conduct or action of the other party comes into existence, the court may in exercise of its inherent power under Section l5l of the Code, permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest of justice, subject to such terms as the court may deem lit to impose."

13. Even in the present case on hand, the petitioners are seeking to reopen the suit in tJ'e tight of the orders cassed by Hon'ble High Court in C.R.p.No.22Ll of 2024 ,rnd C.R.P.No.2239 of 2024, dated: O4-O9-2O24. In the :;aid order the Hon'ble High Court observed that: "During the course of submissions, it was submitted that revision petitioners be permitted to make an application with regard to the documents i.e., exhibits before the Court to prove the relevancy of the said documents for proper adjudication of the case as their rights would be effected." "Learned counsel for respondents submitted that if revision petitioners are permitted for making an application, liberty be granted to the respondents to raise all the objections as per law. It is open to the revision petitioners to make an f r (' '', 7 JAK, J CRPs_2528 2531_2025 application before. the trial Court if advised, within a period of two (02) vreeks from the date of receipt of a copy f this order...", Pursuant to the above said orders of the Honble High Court of Telangana, dated 04.09.2024, the petitioners herein ha're filed a4 application vide I.A.No.425 of 2024 seeking permission to mark the entire ROR file. In the light of the orders of Hon'ble High Court and as per the decision of Honble Supreme Court stated supra, this court needs to consider I.A.No.425 of 2024 and therefore, is inclined to allow the present petition. Point is answered accorclingly. L4. In the result, the petition is allowed reopening the suit as prayed for by the petitioners herein for further hearing and considering the I.A. No. 425 of 2O24 in the interest of justice for proper adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of litigation on cost of Rs. 30O/- to be paid on or before L2-O6-2O25."

9. C.R.P.No.2528 of 2025 is fiied aggrieved by the order clated 09.06.2025 passed in I.A.NI.4I of 2025 in O.S.NI.67 of 2O1O, wherein trial Court allowed reopening of the suit and for considering I.A.NI.425 of 2024. 10" C.R.P.No.253L of 2025 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 09.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.425 of 2024 in O.S.No.67 of 2OLO, wherein trial Court allowed the application according perrnission to mark only those parts of the ROR file which are in original, as per due procedure of law, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibitity 8 JAK. J CRPs_2528 2531 2025

11. It is pertinent to note the fact that in c.R.p.No.31o9 of 2021,3, a learned single Judge of this court held that certified copy of a photostat copy is not admissible in evidence and Exs.B15 and 846 stood demarked. This point has bt:en taken note of by Additionar senior civil Judge, wanaSrarthy, in his order dated og.o6.2o2s in I.A.No.425 of 2024 in O.S.No.67 of 2OtO.

12. Ete that as it m€r], the present two c.R.ps are filed challenging orders in different I.As in the same o.S. i.e., o.s.No.67 of 2010. As stated supra, one application is for reopening of suit and other is for consideration of documents in ROR file.

13. It is trite law that certified copies of photocopies cannot be consiclered as evidence in a suit. That being the issue, r:his court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial court in its order dated og.o6.2o2s in I.A.No.zt2S of 2024 in o.s.No.67 of 2o10. The relevant portion of the judgment is at paragraph No.19, which is as follows: : f 9 JAK, J CRPs 2528 2531 2025 'lg. In the result, the petition is allowed according perrnission to mark only those parts of the FOR file which are in original as per drie procedure of larv subject to proof, relevancy and adrnissibility and not photocopies and further this Court shall not mark the de-marked documents i.e., Ex.B15 and Ex'846 in ttre interest of justice for proper adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of litigation on cost of n"'SOO/- to be paid on or before 12.06.2025." |4.Learnedcounselforrevisionpetitioner/respondent No.1 submitted that in accordallce with the [ndian Evidence Act, 1"872, any documents call be taken on the file of Court and. marked and it can be the basis for adjudication by the trial Court in strict essence'

15. on the other hand, learned counser for respondents submitted that pursuant to the ord.ers in revision petition' trial Court considered' the aspect with regard to admissibility/inadmissibility of the certified copies of photocopies of ROR file and passed the order'

16. Having heard the learned' counsels' this Court is of theconsideredopinionthattrialCourthastakennoteof the orders of this Court in C'R'P'No s'2211 and 2139 of 2o24andinC.R.P.No.3l0gof2o23anditisonthebasisof \ 1 L0 JAK J CRPs 2528 2S3l 2O2S i-: these two orders, Additionat Senior Civil Judge, wanaparthy, passed orders dated og.06.2025 in I.A.No.4r of 2C'25 and I-A.N o.425 0f 2024 in o.s.N o.67 0f 2010. (Both the counsels have consented that the triar court be requr:sted to comply with the Indian Evidence Act, Lg72.) Needl'ess to state that a-s trial court has considered the contentions raised before it and the interrocutory applications as per the raw, this court is not incrined to disturb the orders passed by the trial court. In any event, the tr:ial court srralr comply with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872' as contested by learned counser in strict essence. 17 ' lyith the above observations, both the civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. IVliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand c:losed. SD/. A. SREENTVASA REDDY s TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. 2. One CC t,r Sri S. S. R. Murthy, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC tr: Sri N. Ashok Kumar, Advocate tOpUCI l& 4. Two cD c;opies VTVABK THE S 1 i I'tliB 2tl2f, * t HIGH COURT DATED i 11108t2025 coMMoNt o Dll-il CRP.No.,2528 & 2531 of 2O2S ;. DISPOSING OF BOTFI CRP'S { 16 v