Telangana High Court
M/S Narne Estates Pvt Ltd vs Raju Bai Raj Kumari on 28 March, 2025
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition Nos.375 and 379 of 2025
COMMON ORDER :
Since the issue arising in the instant Civil Revision Petitions and the parties thereto are same, the Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order.
2. Heard Mr.B. Raveendra Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 / defendant No.1.
3. Civil Revision Petition No.375 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order dated 17.12.2024 in I.A.No.764 of 2023 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally; and Civil Revision Petition No.379 of 2025 is filed by the same petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order dated 17.12.2024 in I.A.No.887 of 2024 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally (for short, 'the impugned Common Order').
::2:: PSK,J
crp_375&379_2025
4. For convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their array / status before the Trial Court.
5. Initially, the suit O.S.No.1041 of 2022 (Old Nos. O.S.No.943 of 2021 and 1697 of 2011) was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff herein under Section 26 read with Order VII Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Order XXXIV Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court seeking for grant of perpetual injunction by restraining the respondents / defendants herein, their agents, henchmen or anyone claiming through them from interfering with the petitioner / plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, or claiming through them from alienating, creating any charge, mortgage in respect of the suit schedule property by way of permanent injunction.
6. Pending suit, respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 had filed I.A.No.764 of 2023 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court for rejection of the following documents, viz.,
(a) Photocopy of the agreement of sale dated 07.03.1996;
(b) Photocopy of the agreement of sale dated 22.06.1998;
(c) Photocopy of the agreement of sale dated 30.01.2009;
::3:: PSK,J
crp_375&379_2025
(d) Photocopy of the agreement of sale dated 11.08.1978;
(e) Photocopy of the agreement of renewal;
(f) Photographs relied upon by the petitioner/plaintiff; &
(g) Self-serving lay-out sketch.
7. Pending suit, the petitioner / plaintiff filed I.A.No.887 of 2024 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 under Order 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 15 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to permit the petitioner / plaintiff to lead secondary evidence.
8. Vide the impugned common order, the Trial Court, after hearing both sides, allowed I.A.No.764 of 2023 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 and dismissed I.A.No.887 of 2024 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022.
9. Aggrieved, the instant Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that the documents on which the petitioner want to lead secondary evidence, were already marked as exhibits; at the time of marking of the documents, no objection was raised by the respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 herein; and therefore, the respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 cannot be now permitted to raise objection under Order XIII Rule 3.
::4:: PSK,J
crp_375&379_2025
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the I.A.No.764 of 2023 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022, filed by the respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 is hit by the doctrine of estoppel. According to him, the documents which were sought to be marked were one which have been obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and these documents were duly stamped by the Public Information Officer, and that they have also been held to be valid and legal documents even under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 are genuine, authentic and valid ones and they become admissible in evidence and can also be marked to lead evidence.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, the objections that were raised by the respondent No.1 / defendant no.1 before the Trial Court seeking for rejection of those documents were based on false and vague allegations and they were of bald in nature. He specifically contended that the documents that were sought to be marked for leading secondary evidence were one which were obtained recently, as the originals of the above said documents seems to have been stolen from the office of the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner / plaintiff had no other option except to lead secondary evidence on the ::5:: PSK,J crp_375&379_2025 basis of those documents which have been obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He therefore prayed the Court for setting aside the impugned order in I.A.No.764 of 2023 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022; and also to allow the I.A.No.887 of 2024 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 and permit the petitioner / plaintiff to lead evidence in the matter.
13. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Datti Kameswari vs. Singam Rao Sarath Chandra 1 and also in the case of Appalya vs. Andimuthu alias Thangapandi 2.
14. Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 / defendant No.1, opposing the Revisions, contended that the Trial Court has rightly allowed I.A.No.764 of 2023 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 filed by the respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 on the following grounds, viz.,
(i) firstly, the suit itself is one for relief of perpetual injunction against the respondents / defendants claiming that their claim over the suit schedule property is only on 1 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 389 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1183 ::6:: PSK,J crp_375&379_2025 the basis of an agreement of sale that is alleged to have executed by the respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 in favour of the petitioner / plaintiff;
(ii) the fact that there is an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner / plaintiff by itself would not establish that he has any right over the said property;
(iii) the documents which the petitioner wants to rely on to lead as secondary evidence are those documents which have been obtained from the Office of the District Registrar under the Right to Information Act, 2005;
(iv) since the documents which have been produced by the petitioner / plaintiff to be marked are only photocopies of yet another photocopies of documents maintained in the Office of the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, therefore photocopy of another photocopy document is inadmissible in secondary evidence in the absence of original document having got destroyed or having got lost.
15. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ::7:: PSK,J crp_375&379_2025 Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Regency Mahavir Properties 3, wherein it held that a certified copy of a sale deed can never be considered as a "public document" under Sections 73 to 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as the certified copies are not prepared on the basis of the original records but are based upon a photocopy of the document retained in the Office of the Registrar.
16. Similar are the facts in the instant case, where the original records of the alleged agreement of sale are already with the parties and what was retained in the Office of the Registrar was only a photocopy. Therefore, the decision in Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. (1 supra), squarely applies to the facts of the instant case.
17. Likewise, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 relied on the judgment in the cases of Badrunnisa Begum vs. Mohamooda Begum 4, K. Bhaskar Rao vs. K.A. Rama Rao 5 and Datti Kameshwari vs. Marrapu Lakshmunaidu 6, wherein it has been laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh that certified copies issued 3 A.I.R. 2020 S.C. 4047 4 2001 (3) A.L.D. 11 (D.B.) 5 2010 (5) A.L.D. 339 6 2016 (1) A.L.T. 700 ::8:: PSK,J crp_375&379_2025 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be considered as "certified copies" of public documents within the meaning of Section 73 to 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 unless and until the authority issuing the certified copy retains the original with them, unlike in the instant case.
18. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on a perusal of the record, this Court, at the first instance, is of the considered opinion that the instant Revisions are those which are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is by now well settled proposition of law that while exercising the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court would not sit over the orders passed by the Trial Court as a fact-finding appellate Court. The High Court wouldn't also threadbare re-appreciate the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the evidence and pleadings available on record to reach to yet another conclusion. On the other hand, the only scope of interference to the impugned common order exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are, (a) if the order impugned has a jurisdictional issue, i.e., either without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; (b) if the order impugned is per se illegal and totally perverse; and (c) ::9:: PSK,J crp_375&379_2025 whether the impugned order is one which is contrary to law and statute.
19. It is pertinent to note that the lis involved in the instant Revisions is one where the I.A.No.764 of 2023 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 has been allowed by the Trial Court refusing permission to the petitioner / plaintiff to mark certain documents which they had obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005; and secondly, rejecting the I.A.No.887 of 2024 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022, filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, to lead secondary evidence in respect of those documents which it had obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
20. The suit, viz., O.S.No.1041 of 2022, is primarily a suit for perpetual injunction and the said suit for perpetual injunction is based on an individual dispute between the petitioner / plaintiff and respondents / defendants. When the petitioner / plaintiff had filed the suit for grant of temporary injunction, it is incumbent upon the petitioner / plaintiff to have pleaded and produced before the Trial Court all necessary and cogent documents in original to substantiate his claim as also its right, title and possession over the suit schedule property.
::10:: PSK,J
crp_375&379_2025
21. In the instant case, the documents obtained by the petitioner / plaintiff under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seems to be those which have been obtained in the recent past. From a perusal of the records, it goes to show that the petitioner / plaintiff had filed the above suit on the basis of the documents which have been obtained by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The fact that petitioner / plaintiff had obtained the said documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 must be for the reason that the originals thereof were not available with him from the beginning. Yet, the petitioner / plaintiff did not, at any point of time, reveal it to the Court that copies of documents that have been filed were obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 because of non-availability of the originals. That these documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 have been duly got validated from the Office of the District Registrar and they have also been validated by payment of deficit stamp duty before the District Registrar.
22. The Trial Court, having found that the documents which have been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff in the suit were either photocopies or certified copies of the photocopies, the same therefore would become inadmissible in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the said circumstances, a perusal ::11:: PSK,J crp_375&379_2025 of Order XIII Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, would go to show that a Court hearing a suit has got power for rejection of irrelevant and inadmissible documents duly recording grounds of such rejection. The reasoning given by the Trial Court in its impugned order cannot be found fault with nor can it be said to be arbitrary. Perusal of the pleadings and the contents of I.A.No.764 of 2023 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 would go to show that, there does not seem to be any case made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff that could be accepted to be justifiable and bonafide ground to permit him to lead secondary evidence.
23. In the case of U. Sree vs. U. Srinivas 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion of dealing with the circumstances under which 'secondary evidence' can be permitted to be led. In paragraph Nos.15 to 17, it held as under, viz., "15. In J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani 8, after analyzing the language employed in Sections 63 and 65 (a), a two-Judge Bench held as follows:-
"Section 65, however permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents under the circumstances mentioned. The conditions laid down in the said section must be fulfilled 7 2013 (1) ALT (SC) 18 (D.B.) 8 2007 (3) SCJ 825 ::12:: PSK,J crp_375&379_2025 before secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non- production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section."
16. In M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu and Other 9, It has been held as follows:-
"It is true that a party who wishes to rely upon the contents of a document must adduce primary evidence of the contents, and only in the exceptional cases will secondary evidence be admissible. However, if secondary evidence is admissible, it may be adduced in any form in which it may be available, whether by production of a copy, duplicate copy of a copy, by oral evidence of the contents or in another form. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. It should be emphasised that the exceptions to the rule requiring primary evidence are designed to provide relief in a case where a party is genuinely unable to produce the original through no fault of that party."
17. Recently, in H. Siddiqui (Dead) by Lrs. v. A. Ramalingam10, while dealing with Section 65 of the Evidence Act, this Court opined though the said provision permits the parties to adduce secondary evidence, yet such a course is subject to a large number of limitations. In a case where the original documents are not produced at any time, nor has any factual foundation been laid for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. Thus, secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non-production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence 9 (2010) 9 S.C.C. 712 10 (2007) 5 S.C.C. 730 ::13:: PSK,J crp_375&379_2025 that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. It has been further held that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Therefore, it is the obligation of the Court to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon."
24. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the findings arrived at by the Trial court even in rejecting I.A.No.887 of 2024 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 also cannot be found fault with. Further, the decisions in Datti Kameswari (1 supra) and Appalya (2 supra) have been entirely decided in a different contextual background and thus they are distinguishable on its own facts itself. Therefore, the said decisions do not come to the aid of the petitioner.
25. Thus, in the above given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm view that no strong case has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to interdict the impugned common order dated 17.12.2024 in I.A.No.764 of 2023 and I.A.No.887 of 2024 in O.S.No.1041 of 2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally. The Revisions therefore being devoid of merits deserve to be, and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
::14:: PSK,J
crp_375&379_2025
26. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.
___________________ P. SAM KOSHY, J Date: 28.03.2025 Ndr