Telangana High Court
Singu Ravi vs Vinjamara Vijay Kumar on 22 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4051 & 4053 of 2025
DATE: 22.04.2026
BETWEEN:
Singu Ravi
.....petitioner
And
Vinjamara Vijay Kumar and another
.....Respondents
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the orders dated 12.09.2025 and 12.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.249 of 2023 & I.A.No.250 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2020 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.03 of 2020 seeking cancellation of registered sale deeds dated 10.07.2019 and recovery of balance sale consideration, contending that 2 SKS,J C.R.P.Nos.4051, 4053 of 2025 though the total consideration was Rs.64,00,000/-, only a part payment was made by the respondents/defendants.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.249 of 2023 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence of the said documents through xerox copies. The trial Court dismissed the application on the grounds that the petitioner failed to lay proper foundation for leading secondary evidence, particularly in view of the earlier dismissal of the application for production of originals, and also observed that the documents appeared to be insufficiently stamped and hence inadmissible unless deficit stamp duty and penalty were paid.
4. Further, the petitioner filed I.A.No.250 of 2024 under Order XI Rule 14 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC seeking a direction to the respondents to produce original documents, namely the agreement of sale dated 04.05.2019 and endorsements/receipts dated 13.06.2019, 09.07.2019 and 24.07.2019, asserting that the originals were in the custody of the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the said application holding that the petitioner failed to prima facie 3 SKS,J C.R.P.Nos.4051, 4053 of 2025 establish that the documents were in the possession of the respondents and mere pleadings were insufficient to compel production. Aggrieved by dismissal of both the I.As., the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.
5. Heard Sri S. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri K. Devender, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence, despite the petitioner specifically pleading that the original documents are in the custody of the respondents and that that the respondents failed to file any counter disputing the said application and the Court ought to have drawn an adverse inference against them. He further submitted that the petitioner had already taken steps by filing an application under Order XI Rule 14 read with 151 of CPC, and upon denial by the respondents, the only remedy available was to lead secondary evidence and that the law permits production of xerox copies when originals are withheld by the opposite party, and the trial Court failed 4 SKS,J C.R.P.Nos.4051, 4053 of 2025 to appreciate settled principles governing secondary evidence, thereby passing a mechanical and perverse order.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application for production of original documents, as the petitioner consistently pleaded that the documents were executed by respondent No.2 and retained in his custody. He further submitted that the documents are crucial for adjudication of the dispute relating to payment of sale consideration and that denial of their production has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. He further contended that the trial Court failed to consider that the respondents cannot take advantage of their own denial and refusal to produce documents, and that the Court should have exercised its powers under Order XI Rule 14 read with 151 of CPC to compel production. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the orders of the trial Court by allowing these Criminal Revision Cases.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner failed to establish the foundational requirements either for seeking 5 SKS,J C.R.P.Nos.4051, 4053 of 2025 production of documents under Order XI Rule 14 CPC or for leading secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The respondents have categorically denied the execution of the alleged agreement of sale dated 04.05.2019 and also denied possession of the original documents, and therefore, in the absence of any prima facie material, the trial Court rightly refused to direct production of documents. He further submitted that mere pleadings in the plaint are insufficient to compel production, and allowing such applications would cause serious prejudice to the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is attempting to rely on Photostat copies which do not fall within the ambit of admissible secondary evidence under the Evidence Act, particularly in the absence of proof regarding the existence and loss or withholding of the originals. He further contended that once registered sale deeds were executed on 10.07.2019, the earlier agreement, if any, stands merged into the sale deeds by virtue of the doctrine of merger, and no claim can be based on such alleged prior agreements and that the petitioner has admitted execution of 6 SKS,J C.R.P.Nos.4051, 4053 of 2025 the registered sale deeds for valid consideration, and the certified copies of such documents are already available and admissible in evidence. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss these Civil Revision Petitions.
10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner/plaintiff initially filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 read with 151 of CPC seeking a direction to the respondents/defendants to produce certain original documents, namely the alleged agreement of sale dated 04.05.2019 and subsequent endorsements/receipts. The specific case of the petitioner is that the said documents are in the custody of the respondents. However, the respondents have categorically denied both the execution of such documents and their possession.
11. In such circumstances, it is well settled that the burden lies on the petitioner to establish, at least prima facie, that the documents sought to be produced are in the custody or power of the respondents. Mere assertion in the plaint or affidavit, 7 SKS,J C.R.P.Nos.4051, 4053 of 2025 without any supporting material, is not sufficient to invoke the power of the Court under Order XI Rule 14 read with 151 of CPC. When the respondents have specifically denied possession of the documents, and the petitioner failed to place any material to substantiate his plea, the trial Court was justified in holding that no direction can be issued to the respondents to produce documents which they claim not to possess. The Court cannot compel production of documents which are not shown to be in existence or in the custody of the opposite party. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial Court in dismissing the said application.
12. Further, the petitioner filed another application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence by producing xerox copies of the alleged documents. It is a settled principle of law that before permitting secondary evidence, the party must lay proper foundational facts, such as existence of the original document, its execution, and the circumstances under which the original is not produced, including proof that it is lost or is in the 8 SKS,J C.R.P.Nos.4051, 4053 of 2025 possession of the opposite party who has failed to produce the same despite notice.
13. In the present case, the petitioner failed to establish such foundational facts. On the contrary, the earlier application seeking production of originals was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner could not show that the documents were in the custody of the respondents. In the absence of such proof, the petitioner cannot be permitted to fall back upon secondary evidence.
14. That apart, a perusal of the documents sought to be marked reveals that the alleged agreement of sale is stated to have been executed on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- . Prima facie, such a document requires proper stamp duty, and an insufficiently stamped document is inadmissible in evidence unless the requisite stamp duty and penalty are paid in accordance with law. More importantly, what is sought to be produced is only a xerox copy/photostat copy, which cannot be impounded or validated under the provisions of the Stamp Act. It is settled that an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document, when produced in original, may be 9 SKS,J C.R.P.Nos.4051, 4053 of 2025 impounded, but a mere copy of such document cannot be validated and is inadmissible in evidence.
15. Further, in view of the admitted execution of registered sale deeds dated 10.07.2019, the alleged prior agreement, even if assumed to exist, would stand merged into the registered conveyance, and the rights of the parties are governed by the recitals in the sale deeds. Therefore, the relevance and admissibility of the alleged agreement itself is doubtful.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner failed to make out any case either for directing production of documents or for permitting secondary evidence. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts and applied the settled principles of law while dismissing both the applications. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting interference. Therefore, both the Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed. 10
SKS,J C.R.P.Nos.4051, 4053 of 2025
17. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed confirming the orders of the trial Court dated 12.09.2025 and 12.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.249 of 2023 & I.A.No.250 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2020 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 22.04.2026 SAI