The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr lmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma 7 be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS no. 1236 of 2018 on the file c ' the Honorable Vlll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L-B. Naga-. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. MARAM ANIL KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI KIRAN PALAKURTHI Rl: ,RESENTING SRILATHA PALAKURTHI F( R R1. The Court made the following: ORDER ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT [IYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3864 of 2024 l5'h DAY oF DECEMBER,2025 Between: Haripuri Residents Welfare Association AND Sri Vemireddy Yugendhar Reddy and 4 others. ORDER: ...Petitioner ...Respondents Ileard Sri M. Anit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civit Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent/plaintiff chalfenging the docket order dated 04.11.2024 in 1.A.No.536 of 2024 ia O.S.No. 1236 of 2018 pending on the file of the leamed VIll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B-Nagar, ('trial Court'), wherein a petition filed by respondent No.l /petitioner/defendant No. I under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act,l872 ('Evidence Act'), to receive the original building perrnit order dated 09.04.2018, along with other certified copies, has been allowed. --\ \ RY,J cRP 3864 2024 3- The background facts of the case are that the 1r, filed the main suit seeking declaration of title and cancc titioner herein has lation of registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.623 of 2017 and 6l __s! of 2016. The said suit is cumently coming for evidence of D.W. 1, who i herein. Respondent No. I filed petition under Section ; respondent No.l 65 B to receive documents consisting of certified copy of registered ..r lc deed document No. 6159 of 2016 dared 20.10.2016, certified copy of.r.t sistered sale deed document No.680 ol- 1967 d,ated 27.02.1967, original brir ding permit order dated 09.04.2018 and original LRS proceeding dated I. purpose of receiving the buitding permit order J .03.2018. For rhe tted 09.04.2018, I.A.No.536 of 2024 was filed under Section 65 B of thr: F,vidence Act i.e. to receive electronic evidence. While filing said petitiorr B of the Evidence Act, a certificate also has been produr: computer output was read and downloaded from GHMC of the same was given by GHMC authorities. On perusirr, under Section 65 d stating that the .r,ebsite and print , the petition and the certificate. the learned trial Court passed the followinll locket order. "Counter filed by the Respondent/plaintilL Heard, the.horlr sidcs. the petitioner c()ntcnded that Buildirr: r)ennil ordcr issued by the (iFiMC authorities which was conrputer generarr I copy on the other hand respondenr contended [har there ir' ,, ;;;;; he computer namc and other particulars. Hence. cannot be."""iu"J-'gut admiftcdly it was issued by the GHMC authorities and on the certit,,,, te also it is mentioned that colnputer generatcd copy. Hence, p*,i"" i, al :wccl subject to proof and relevancy.,' 2 RY.J cRP 3864 2024 Aggrieved by the above docket order, the present revision is preferred

4. The dispute between the parties is about the location of a plot in the layout of Haripuri Colony. According to the petitioner herein, respondent No.l labricatcd a fake location sketch for an unnumbered plot which does not fit or match with the layout dated 05.06.1966 issued by the Executive Officer, Saroornagar Grama Panchayath, Hyderabad. Further, respondent No. I obtained illegal building permission from GHMC for construction on comrnunity land by furnishing the fabricated location sketch. ln submitting said labricated sketch, respondent No. I colluded with respondent Nos.2 and i and is procceding with construction of a building on grabbed community land by digging bore well 5 Respondent No. l/Defendant No.l after filing the chief affidavit as D.W. I fited I.A.No.2l6 of 2024 under Order VIll Rule 1A (3) read with 'building permit order dated Section 15 t of CPC to receive the original

09.04.2018 and the said petition was allowed on 31.07.2024. The I.A under revision is flted for receiving the building permit order dated

09.04.2018, withoul rnentioning the downloaded document of which the printout is provided, with respect to the computer used and did not speciff the name, signature and designation of the officer on the document. Respondent No.l claimed that the building permit order is a computer 3 RY,J cRP 3864 2024 generated copy downloaded from the GHMC website, S :ction 65 B of the Evidence Act has requirements for admitting ele,: ronic records in evidence. The details about the computer printcr are rr ,t plovided in the ceftificate, and therefore, said document cannot be perrr i ted to be received in evidence according to the petitioner herein. The pet tioner has fi[ed a petition under Order XIII Rule 3 of CPC to demark ar.r I reject Ex.D-6 i.e. building permit order. i.e. downloaded copy dated 0!,. )4.2018, but said petition is continuously retumed by the lcamed trial Cor t. [n that context, reference is made to the orders passed by this Coun irr Crl.P.No. 1116 of 2020 and. W.P.No.28385 of 2018. On the basis of aforer.:r:ntioned grounds, ii is prayed that the impugned docket order dated 04. I l.;- t24 in I.A.No.536 of 2024 be set aside.

6. During the arguments, the learned counsel for pct 'ioners submitted that the respondent No. I has produccd rhe buitding p :rmit order as a downloaded copy by filing a ceftificate u,hich does rL, t contain details about the computer used for downloading, the printer us l I for printing and the officials who have signed said document. In view of . re lacunae in the certificate, it is argued that the requirements of Sec _i rn 65 B of the Evidence Act are not lnet and therefore. ttre Civil Rer sion Petition be allowed and to set aside the impugned docket order. 4 \ RY.J cRP 3864 2024

7. In response, the leamed counsel for respondent No.l argued that the certificate meets all the requirements under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act. Further, a copy ofthe downloaded copy is produced before this Court, which shows that a person by name R. Srinivas Reddy, Assistant City Planner has uploaded the documcnt by order of Commissioner GHMC on

09.04.2018. The downloaded is signed by the Assistant City Planner. Learned counsel for respondent No. I submitted that the downloaded copy is issued by the GHMC olflcials thernselves and it is not downloaded in any personal computer or plinter and therefore, no such details are provided. The certificate submitted along with the petition clearly indicates that the copy was downloaded by the GHMC officials in their computer and handed over to respondent No. l. Such being the case, respondent No.l would not have the details as to the computer and printer and therefore, such details cannot be given. Sulfice it to say that the details about the mode of downloading were provided in the ceftificate and therefore, it is argued that there are no grounds to set aside the impugned docket order

8. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner herein filed a plaint in O.S.No. I 236 of 201 8 to cancel the registered sale deed document Nos.623 of 2017 dated. 13.02.2017 and,6159 of 2016dated20.10.20I6and to restore the road as per sanctioned layout dated 05.06.1966. Cunently, the 5 RY,J cRP 3864 2024 a' suit is at the stage of recording of defendants' evidenue. ' 'he location of the plot purchased by respondent No. I under the disputed r ocument Nos.623 of 2017 and 6159 of 2016 are the subjcct marrer of rhr iuit. According to the petitioner herein, the plot purchasecl bv rcspondent li r.l does not exist, and said plots are wrongly shown to be located in comrn.r rity land in a road ofthe layout. The sanctioned layout dated 05.06. l96ri < oes not show the plot of respondent No.l. Therefore, the petitioner is :;, eking documents related to said plots to be declared as null and void. I I- : building permit order is the permission given by CFIMC fbr constructiLr r of a house in the plot of respondent No.1. For giving perrnission, t[-re pct lioner is alleging collusion between respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos 2 and 3 and said GHMC officials are also arraigned as respondents. Rcspot dent No. I herein may require marking of building permit to shorv that thr. c rnstrucLion made by him is legal and is carried out by following due procr< ures. Marking of said document is to serve the limited purpose ol-; rowing that the construction is made only after obtaining permission.

9. Now, the question is whether said building permit c,r ler is admissible in evidence or not. Admittedly, the docurnent is a dorv,l, aded copy from GHMC website. Such being the case, one of the require r rents is to file a cefiificate showing the mode of access and downloadin s rl the electronic 6 RY,J cRP i864 2024 document. In the instant case, the ce(ificate under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act is filed along with the petition. The certificate clearly indicates that the document is downloaded from GHMC website and printout is given by GHMC authorities. Such being the case, once the document is received as it has been reccived and marked as Ex.D-6, it is open for respondent No. I to summon any olhcial from the office of respondent No.5 to prove the authenticity of Ex.D-6 and it is also open to the petitioner to summon such witness lrom respondent No.5 to disprove the existence of such a document. When temedies are available, it is only appropriate that the document is receivcd in evidencc. The certificate, as it stands, meets the requirements of giving details of mode of obtaining the document, as such, this Court sees no inlirmity in the docket order passed by the learned trial Court. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be disrnissed.

10. In the result, the civit Revision Petition is dismissed confinning the docket order dated 04. I1.2024 passed by the triat Court in I'A'No'536 of 2024 in O.S.No. 1236 of 2018. 'fhere shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications, il any, pending shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/.M.NAGAM ISTANT REG R CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vlll additional District Judge at L.B. Nagar, R?naa Rqddv Distri

2. One CC to SRl. II/ARAM AN|L KUMAR Advocate [OpU( | 3 One CC to SRI SRILATHA PALAKURTHI Advocate [OF, rC] 4. Two CD Copies / PK/?SL \ HIGH COURT DATED:1 511212025 I \ CRP.No.3864 ot 2024 t ? r) <-) 0 .ll I .;: J} ,;i'";'-p.a/ -:.'- :-:- -'' CIVIL REVISION PEITITION tS DISMISSE D.