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 fulfilled7
2013 (1) ALT (SC) 18 (D.B.)
8
2007 (3) SCJ 825
::12:: PSK,J
crp_375&379_2025before 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