Bhorti Shorma v. Naresh Kumarl

2. A. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Sathi Reddy a/a 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 10-302, Vasanthapuri Colony Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy Districl4T

3. T.C. Eshwara Reddy, S/o T.C. Nagi Reddy a/a 50 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee. R/o.HNo.2-6312, Mallikarlun Nagar. Opp. Uppal Bus Depot, Hyderabad- 500 0912 4 J. Kondal Rao, S/o Kishan Rao, a/a 58 years, Occ. Service, R/o Plot No.11, Sita Homes, Almasguda, Badangpet Hyderabad -58

5. T. Narayana, S/o Narsimha Charyulu, a/a 48 years, Occ. Service, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20 6 Mitta Naveen Kumar Reddy, S/o Mitta Yadava Reddy a/a 44 years, Occ. Private Service, R/o H.No. 1-4-31, Street No. 7, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. 7. Kolli Venkata Suresh, S/o K. Nagaiah ala 43 yearc, Occ. Lecturer, Rlo. 9-122, Phase-1'1 , Allwyn Colony Near Jalakanya Center, Kukatpally, Hyderabad -72

8. A Ram Reddy, S/o Laxma Reddy, ala 34 yours, Occ. Business, R/ o. Plot No.79, Road No.3, Annapurna Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad.

9. T. Pandu, S/o T. Pakeer. a/a 33 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee R/o. H.No. 3-101, Pathakondapally Yadagirigutta village and mandal Nalgonda District

10. K. Anjula, Wo K. Pradeep Reddy, ala 45 years, Occ. ll,; rse rvife, R/o. H No 8-2-8516, Sri Sai Enclave, Old Bowenpally, Opp Chr; ,kpost. Secunderabaci- 1 1.

11. Smt A. Durga tVladhavi, Wo A. Chandramouleshwar R;t ). ala 61 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.1O-87, HMT Nagar, Nacharam. Hy lerabad.

12.A. Shivaram Prasad, S/o late A Rama Rao, a/a 45 year:; Occ. Electncian, R/o C/o A.P Rao, H No A-4, D.D Colony, University Fr st Office. Hyderabad-500 007

13. L Suryaprakash Reddy, S/o Raja Reddy, a/a 59 years, ( cc Business. R/o. H No B-2-85/6 Sri Sai Enclave Old Bowenpally, Opp. r: eckoost Secunderabad .14. G. Balaiah, S/o G.Narsimha, ala 57 years, Occ. Pvt ser'/ le, R/o H.No. 3-5- 24122C, Bakshiguda, H B colony Moulali, Hyderabad 4t, 15 Bethi Venkatesh, S/o B. Laxmi Narayana, ala 32 years. ( )cc. Pvt Service Rep by S.P.A. Holder B Bhasker, S/o B.Ramulu ala 34 years Occ. Business, HNo 13-4-763. Karwan, Hyderabad

16.P Solomon Ra1u, S/o late P. Sudershanam, ala 46ye?t; Occ Business, R/o FIat No 209 Bhagyasri Aptts Lane-2, St No.14, Na: rrjuna Nagar Tarna<a, Seclndera bad

17.Kaneez Fathima, W/o late Shaik Patcha Saheb, aged 52 years. Occ House Wife, R./o. H No 17-8-977/4/2, Gollakhidiki, Hyderabad ( 17rh respondent is not necessary party to this petition ...RESPONDENTS/RESPOT\ DENTS/PLAINTIFFS ...sth RESPC,I IDENT/DEFENDANT lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petrtion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court m: / be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in OS No. 501 of 2022, pc ding on the flle of I Additional District Judge, tr/edchal lValkajigir at Kushaigud: pending disposal of the revisron petition, we suffer rrreparable loss and hardshrp Counsel for the Petitioners:SR[. CH ESHWAR KUMAR SH,\ iMA Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER w THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CI VIL REVISION PETITION No. 3771 of 2023 ORDER 'I he prcsent Civil [{evisitln l)etition is pret'ened against the order datc<l 10.10.1023 in LA. No. 841 of 2022 in O S- No. 501 of 2022 passed bl,tlrc I Additionat District Judgc Medchal Matkajgiri at Kushaiguda.

2. I hc revision petitioners hercin arc thc dclendant Nos. I to 4 in thc abovc Suit.

3. lhe respondcnt Nos.l to 16 hercin filcd the abovc suil for declaration to declare Lhe ex-parte dccree datcd 2l .01 .201 I passed in O.S. No. 100 of'2010 onthe fileof DistrictJudge. I{anga Reddl' clistrict as null and void and not binding. and also tbr declaration and consequential iniunction, as plaintilfs llrle O.S. No' 501 of 2022 under Ordcr VII Itule I and 2 r/*' Section 26 ol'CPC.

4. The petitionersi defendant Nos. I to ;l hercin filed thc undcrll ing intcrlocutory application vide l.A. No 841 ol 2022 in O.S. No. 501. of 2022 undcr Section 6i and 65(c) ol' Indian Evidencc Act (lbr short 'the Act') r/w Section 151 of the Code L I i i i ! i 2 sccking to rcceivc the rerox copics ofdocuntcnts I t ng rvith chicl' aflldavit ol I)Wl in Iieu ol thc original docunrents (- I docunlcnts) to mark thcnr as sccondarl'cvidencc.

5. l'hc trial ('oun disnrisscd lhe underlyinr Interiocuton Application lroldins that thcro is no mcnlion r thc \\ ritten statcnlent ri ith rcqard to thc origillal clocumcnts. Iiutl rer. thc ('orlrt hclon [burd that thc pctitioners failed to brin.t rn record or procluce arrr ntatcrial cstablishing that the photocopi:; sought to be introducccl us sccondarl, e',idcncc wcrc derivcd fior I the tirieinals. 'l herefbre. lltc docunlcnts tllcd hcrc.in. cannot I^,. adtnitted in evidence as sccondan' er.idcnce.

6. Ileard lcarneC counsel l-or thc pctitioners and l: rmeci counsel Ior thc rcspondents and pcruscd thc rccord.

7. '['he pctiltoners contcnd that the impugned ort:r is c{,ntrar_\ to larv and thc trial Court lailed to exercisc its jur I Ciction under Section 6-l & 6-5(c) ol'Irvidcnce Act, in rejecting tht. pptication on the grounrl o1'lailurc to establish thc documents fi1,r, in thc Court havc bccn lost in transit. notu,ithstanding the tr:L that these documents are vital and rclovant fbr thc ad-judicalir I of thc suit. 3 Hcnce, the requirement o1'rcceiving the documents as secondary evidcnce is esscntial and ncccssarv 1'or the purposc ol'ctfectivc and conrplcte ad.judication of thc abovc suit.

8. Per contra. thc respondents./p laintilli contcnd that the petition filed b1" thc petitioners is liable to bc dismisscd on the acc()urlt ol failure to produce certifled copics or original documents. as thc said documents filed are merc photocopies lacking thc requisite lcgal sanctity 1t; be adnlittcd as sccondary' e videuce: that evcn il the ahove said documents arc not admittr:d bi,the trial Court, it would not prejudice the petitioners del'encc in the case in any ntanner.

9. Thc rcspondents/plaintiffs further submit that the petitioners havc neithcr lilcd an1 [ist of documents as claitned in thcir rvritton statcment rtor scrvcd anl copies ol the said docurncnts thereot, u.hich shons that thc petitioners herein have not placecl the said docurnents on record.

10. Ihe respondents/plaintiffs herein also contcnd that. thc petitioners hercin tailed to lumish any evidence such as inward number (Sr No.) to substantiate their claim of documents getting 4 nrisplaccd or Ioss ol rhc alleeed docurncnts in rn,r-rrt u,hich arc claimed as filed bclirrc thg trial Court. u,hich or I makc their allcgation hasolcss antl lalsc. Thus. thc underlying a r rlication filcd by thc pctirioners lacks of br.,na Jitles and is liablc to :: disrnissed. ll.l have Lakcn note o1'the rcspcctirc contcnti()ns ur I (1.

12.1t is pcrtinent to notr that thc pctitioners r.rcin trv thc underll,inl intcrlocur()r1 application havc sought t recei,".o thc documents as sccondart evitlcncc. tr.hercin the1,hal. lsscrlcd that the said docuntcnts l cle liled along u.ith the u,rittcr ,tatement and as thc sanre \\ crc uor liruntl. it is bcing prcsumcd tlrr t the original documents nrav haYe bccn nrrsplaccd or lost durins rrc transl-er ol' thc suit. rrhich cast douht as to tvhethcr thc pctitic,it;rs has rcally flled the orisinal docunrcnts or not into the trial Cuur t

13.1'houglr. thc pctitioners u,ho have filed photocol,i :s of thc saicj documents soueht to bc reliccl upon bl.thcm along r. Lh the rvritten statcnrent, the pctitioncrs did not lcad anl secondai., cvidence by leading coeent and convincing rcasons that the clocr nents sought to be pror ed rvas in cxiste nce when the same .r cre lost or i I ! i I 5 nrisplaoed by the trial Court. as has bccn clairncd in thc underlying application. t4.1-hc pctitioncrs herein mere lv asserted that the original docunrcnts that are [ited into the trial Courl are lost in thr: hands o1' thc oUicials ()l'the Court but did not make an1' compliant in rcspcct of the snmc. and in the abscnce ol'such a complaint, thc petitioncrs arc not cntitlcd Lo scck thc admission oF photocopies as secoudarl evidcnce. l;urthcr. it is trite law that mere assettion rvith rcgard to m isp laccmcntlloss of document is not sulllcient to lead secondarl' cvidencc (Sce: Bhorti Shorma vs. Naresh Kumarl1.

15. In thc prcscnt casc, the petitioners u'hile seeking to file the documents as secondall o'idcncc did not file any foundational or original evidcnce to prolc Lhat the allegcd documents are in lact truc copies ol'the original tbr the trial Court to check the probatii'c valuc ol- the documcnt produccd (See: M. Chondra v. M. Thangam ulh u2 ).

16. Section 6l of thc Act provides that the Secondary evidenoc arc ccrtitled copies given undcr the Act: copies made b1' 'vaxUttprtzzzi:o:: '(:oro) 9 sct zt2 6 nlechanical proccsses. copic:j mado liom or conrp 1cd uitlr the ori{rinal: c()ur)le rllarts o1' d0curncr.tts lrs aqainst thc 1,1 rties tr h() rlid not cxecute thcnr: oral accorrnts ofdocument givcn 1,. jonlc pctson rvho has hrrnscll'seen it. Iforrevcr. the petitioncrs lcrcin did rrot shorv anr r'r'iclcncc on rccortl lhat arc sought to l rcceircd as sccortdan er itlcr.rcc and did not provc lhat tlte sairl ti, :uments u,crc madc lronr thc originals' hv nrechanical process.

17. Section (r5 (c) of'thc Act providc that the scco I lury evidcncc can bc led. rvhen the original has bcen dcstroycd o- l()st. or whcn the party oll-crine evi<lencc ()f its contcnts cannot. irr unr othcr reason not arisin_q fittm his oun dclault or ncglcci. proclucc it in reasonable linrc.

18. It is to bc notcd that thc petitittners have rrcir r rr- cstablislicd nor specificalll, ar,erretl in thc rvrittcn statement rrrrl. regurd to thc said documents lbr them to clair.n as original tJoc rnenrs har ing been filed b1, them s,ith the r.i rittcn statcmcn t rcen lost or misplaced b1 thc trial Oourl; aud that thc docunrenls ou sought to be filed are copies derived liom the originals. ('orr: equcntlv. thc petitioners- e Iaim that sincc thc original documenrs ri: illed are lost I 1 l i ! i i/ 7 or misplaced. and thus the petitioncr should be permitted to file copies of thc documents as sccondary eYidencc without any o'idence in this rcgard. cannot be acccpted.

19. Accordingll . tbr the above said rcasons this Court is of the considcred vieu that the docurnents liled b1, tho petitioncr under thc underlfing interlocuton' application cannot be reccivcd as sccondarr evidencc and the samc also sannot be admitted in cvidencc 2(1. In the lishr o['thc atirrcsaid discussion. this Court is of thc vieu,that the Ordcr dated 10.10.202i docs not suflcr lrom anv crror fbr being interf'ercd in exercisc of supcn'isory jurisdiction under Article 221 ol the Constitution ul' India

21. Accordingli. this Clivil Rcrision Pctition is dismissed. No order as to costs (ionsequcnt[1,. misccllatieous petitions pcnding if an1' shall stand closed SD/- HUSSAIN ALI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 i/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional District Judge, Medchal Malkajigir at Kushaiguda 2. One CC to Sri. Ch. Eshwar Kumar Sharma, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CD Copies. PM/PSL s =-*--*# HIGH COURT DATED:1 1107t2025 ORDER CRP.No.3771 of 2023 -l _-:\. "' ,r,'\.. ( l'i.. . -., \ t i:I m ,:/ --..,/ DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PET ION : I i i I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I : i i ; I i i i i I I I I Ii i I I I I i €