The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. SRINIVAS CHITTURU Counsel for the Respondent: SRI B.S. PRASAD, SENIOR COUNSEL PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY OF ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Srinivas chitturu, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. B.s. prasad, learned Senior counsel representing M/s. pearl Law Associates on behalf of the respondents and perused the records.

2. The instant civil Revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated o9.o9.2o25 passed by the chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad ('for short 'the Trial courtJ, in I.A.No.4081 of 2025 in O.S.No. 188 of 2OLT.

3. The petitioners before this court are the defendants before the Trial Court.

4. The Suit has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for recovery of the fixed deposits made by the plaintiffs, which were alleged to have been fraudulently permitted to be withdrawn by third parties.

5. In the course of the trial, the petitioners-Bank of Baroda have moved a petition under Section 60(c) of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short 'the 2o2g ActJ, seeking ,/ a\ \ 2 permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of around 17 documents, the details of which were annexed along with the said petition.

6. The Trial Court uide the impugned order has rejected the same primarily on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the petitioners/defendants have not taken such a plea in the Written Statement that they have filed, and secondly, the petitioners have not been able to satisfy the Court so far as the requirement under Section 60(c) of the 2023 Act is concerned.

7. Today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in the course of the hearing, drew the Court through the pleadings in the Written Statement, wherein,'in paragraph 12, it reads thus: "It is submitted that the with reference to the allegations in para 8 and 9 of the plaint that the corporation has realized only 19.00 crores out of 59.01 crores are misconceived and the defendants are not liable for any amount and deny all the averments in the plaint and deny the alleged claim in the suit. The allegations that the defendants in fact sent a reply on 2.5.2013 denying and mentioning all the facts referred in this affidavit and in spite of the same on the very same allegations vexatious summary suit is filed by the Corporation without even giving any reply to the Reply Notice dt. 2.5.2013 stating that there is no evidence in the suit which is incorrect. It ls submitted that the Defendant has already filed the relevant docum.ents in support of its contentions along with an appllcation for granting leave to defend the Suit in I.A.No.2943 of 2017 and prays the Hon'ble Court to read the sald documents as part and parcel of this written statement." t / 3

8. This, according to the petitioners, was in respect of the very same documents which they intend to use as secondary cvidence now through the I.A.No.4081 of 2025. I 'fhe contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that these are the documents whose original copies were seized by the Police Authorities and at least a few of them are also part of the chargesheet. Therefore, since the petitioners do not have the originals and the originals are with the Police Authorities and the concerned Magistrate seized of the criminal case, the court should not have rejected the case outright, but, rather permitteci them to produce secondary evidence in respect of this matter.

10. During the course of the hearing today, it has been learnt that the documents mentioned at sl.Nos.2 to 7,9, lo and 13 are the only documents, which are part of the chargesheet and as regards the other documents are concerned, the contention of the learned Standing counsel appearing for the petitioners is that though they have been seized by the police Authorities, they have not been made part of the chargesheet. I 1. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondents/plaintiffs, on the other hand, submits that the 4 petitioners herein in the Written Statement have not taken a categorical stand in respect of the non-availability of the originals with them, and secondly, in respect of the originals of these documents being seized by the Police Authorities, and thirdly, these documents being part of the chargesheet liled before the Criminal Court, and therefore the observation made by the Trial Court is properly made and justilied and does not warrant interference.

12. Having heard the contentions put forth by both the parties, and upon perusal of the record, there does not seem to be any dispute so far as the aforementioned documents listed at Sl.Nos.2 to7,9, 1O and 13 being part of the Criminal Case and also part of the chargesheet. Since the originals are part of the chargesheet and also part of the Criminal Case, I do not find any good ground for not permitting the petitioners to rely upon these very documents, which are part of the chargesheet and Criminal Case.

13. At this juncture, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners also submits that, in fact, they also made an attempt to obtain certified copies of these documents, but on ,I ./ =7 5 the ground of these documents having gone to the FSL, certified copies could not be obtained.

14. Be that as it ffiay, taking note of the fact that the aforementioned documents at sl.Nos.2 to 7,9, 10 and 13 are -" part of the criminal case as also part of the chargesheet, this court is inclined to permit the petitioners to lead secondary evidence in respect of these very documents. However, the admissibility and genuineness of the said documents is left open to be decided after recording of the evidence. As regards the other documents which do not form part of the chargesheet of the criminal case, subject to the petitioners being able to meet the test as is required under Section 6o(c) of the 2023 Act, it is left open for the petitioners to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

15. Accordingly, the civil Revision petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ SD/- A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS CHITTURU Advocate IOPUCI One CC to SRl. PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies 2 3 Mr'^ kul/PSL ,,:# HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 ORDER CRP.No.3796 of 2025 ; , o t * s OI JAl'l 2826 '2 * PARTLY ALLOWTN(} THE CIVIL REVISION PETTTION 1 q