Telangana High Court
Smt. Haneefa Bee vs Mr. Mohd. Nizam on 3 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.1720 of 2022
Between:
Smt Haneefa Bee,
W/o Late Maqbool Hussan
... Petitioner
And
Mr. Mohd. Nizam,
S/o Mohd. Ismail
... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 03.04.2024
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether her Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
2
LNA, J
CRP.No.1720 of 2022
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.1720 of 2022
% 03.04.2024
Between:
# Smt Haneefa Bee,
W/o Late Maqbool Hussan
..... Petitioner
And:
$ Mr. Mohd. Nizam,
S/o Mohd. Ismail
....Respondent
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ali Farooq
^ Counsel for Respondent: Sri K.Jamali
? Cases Referred:
1. 2016(161) AIC 275
2. 2004(1) CivilLJ 344
3
LNA, J
CRP.No.1720 of 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.1720 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by order dated
13.06.2022 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at
Kukatpally, in unnumbered I.A.of 2022 in O.S.No.521 of 2008,
whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 203-A of
Civil Rules of Practice r/w Rule 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure to issue certified copy of the unmarked Agreement of
sale dated 18.01.1997, vide CA.No.1447 of 2022 filed in the suit
was dismissed.
2. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is
the plaintiff in the suit.
3. The petitioner stated that she filed LGOP.No.821 of 2003
against the respondent seeking to declare him as a land grabber and
to evict him from the scheduled property and the said case is
pending. Subsequent to filing of the said LGOP, the respondent
filed suit in OS.No.285 of 2004 for permanent injunction before
the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at
LNA, J
Prasanthnagar and later, the suit was transferred to the Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally and
renumbered as OS.No.521 of 2008, and eventually, the suit was
dismissed for default on 03.04.2010.
3.1. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application IA.No.453
of 2010 for the return of the unmarked certified copy of the
agreement and the trial Court allowed the said application by
ordering substitution of the same with photostat copy of the said
document and returned the original unmarked document to the
respondent.
3.2. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner approached the trial
Court to direct the office to issue certified copy of the unmarked
Agreement of Sale dated 18.01.1997, which was permitted to be
substituted by the respondent by photostat copy of the said
document. The trial Court on hearing both sides and on perusal of
the entire material, found that only xerox copy/photostat copy of
agreement of sale was on record and therefore, it does not have any
power to certify Xerox copies/photocopies and accordingly,
dismissed the petition.
LNA, J
4. Heard Sri Ali Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri K.Jamali, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire
material available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial
court failed to consider the provisions of Rule 203(A) of the Civil
Rules of Practice and erred in dismissing the application without
assigning any proper reason. Hence, prayed to allow this Revision
Petition.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of the combined High Court for
the States of Telangana and High Court in G. Suverna Bai v. M.
Ramesh Chander 1 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supeme Court
in K. Nagarajan v. K.S. Ramasamy 2,
7. In G. Suverna Bai's case (1st cited supra), the High Court
held that the lower court erred in rejecting the application-
I.A.No.59 of 2013 filed for obtaining a certified copy of a
Certificate issued under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950,
which is crucial for the case of the petitioner and is available in
2016(161) AIC 275
2004(1) CivilLJ 344
LNA, J
another court proceeding (O.S.No.9 of 1992), on technical grounds
and accordingly, allowed the Civil Revision Petition.
8. In K.Nagarajan's case (2nd cited supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court allowed the petitioner therein to take certified copy
of the unmarked document filed in a suit for effective inspection.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner sought for issuance of
certified copy of photostat copy of unmarked Agreement of sale
produced by the respondent in the suit. Therefore, the citations
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are no way
helpful to the petitioner as the facts of the above judgment and the
present case are completely different and the trial Court did not
dismiss the application on technical grounds.
10. Here, it is apposite to reproduce Section 204(A) of the Civil
Rules of Practice which reads as under:-
"(1) On an application by the party, the court may grant
copy of a proceeding or document filed in or in the
custody, of the court by getting it reproduced
mechanically on payment of Rs. (2-00)1 per page by
means of affixture of court fee labels to the application for
copy or in cash through lodgment Schedule with in such
time as the court may grant.
LNA, J
(2) The same Rules as are applicable to certified copies to
be taken out on copy stamp papers will also apply mutatis
mutandis to copies taken by mechanical reproduction".
11. A conjoint reading of the above Section and the Evidence
Act makes it clear that certified copies are admissible as evidence
in court. They carry the same weight and legal significance as the
original documents they represent. The Courts recognize certified
copies as official reproductions that have undergone verification,
making them acceptable and reliable evidence in the case. This
helps establish the authenticity and validity of the evidence.
12. Further, certified copies provide a means to verify the
authenticity of documents. During the certification process, an
authorized individual examines the original document and
compares it to the copy. This verification ensures that the certified
copy accurately represents the original, confirming its authenticity
and credibility.
13. In the instant case, it appears that after dismissal of the suit,
the plaintiff filed an application for return of the unmarked
certified copy of the Agreement of sale and the same was allowed,
permitting it to be substituted by a photostat copy of the said
LNA, J
document. Thereafter, the petitioner herein, who is the defendant,
filed an application for issuance of certified copy of the photostat
copy of the said unmarked document.
14. As already stated supra, when the legal sanctity and weight
attached to the certified copies of the documents, be it marked or
unmarked, issued by the Court is that of the original document, the
Court in its power cannot certify a Photostat copy of an unmarked
document, thereby confirming its authenticity and credibility.
15. In view of the aforesaid reasons, facts and circumstances of
the case and the legal position, this Court is of the considered view
that the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not suffer
from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this
Court.
16. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
17. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date:03.04.2024
Note:
LR copy to be marked.
B/o
dr
