Telangana High Court
Ch. Satyamma Died vs Shivareddypally Krishnaiah And 9 ... on 13 June, 2025
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1614 of 2019
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - respondent -
defendant No.3 (died) represented by her legal representatives - petitioners 2
and 3 (who were brought on record as per the orders in I.A.No.3 of 2025 dated
01.05.2025) aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.278 of
2018 in O.S.No.4 of 2009 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, Rangareddy
District.
2. I.A.No.278 of 2018 is filed by the respondent No.1 - petitioner - plaintiff
under Section 65(c) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of CPC
seeking permission to lead secondary evidence by producing photocopy of the
acknowledgement of the sale consideration of the suit house by defendants 1
and 2, dated 12.02.2008.
3. The said petition was allowed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pargi at
Rangareddy District on 03.04.2019.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner - respondent - defendant No.3
preferred this revision.
Dr.GRR, J
crp_1614_2019
5. Heard Sri Vijay Ashrith, learned counsel representing Sri V.Raghunath,
learned counsel for the petitioners on record and Sri P.D.Tenneti, learned
counsel representing Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 - plaintiff on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial court passed
the impugned order erroneously on conjectures. Without the respondent No.1 -
plaintiff substantiating his claim, the trial court ought not to have allowed the
petition by referring to other documents and pleadings in the plaint while
adjudicating a petition under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It
was an illegal order and relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Manisha Mahendra Gala and Others v. Shalini
Bhagwan Avartramani and Others.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - plaintiff on the other hand
contended that the respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed the suit for specific
performance of contract. The defendants 1 and 2 sold the suit property to the
plaintiff and received the sale consideration on different occasions and passed
receipts and acknowledgments admitting the receipt of the sale consideration
from time to time in favor of the plaintiff. One such acknowledgment passed by
defendants 1 and 2 dated 12.02.2008 admitting the receipt of Rs.45,000/- by
each of them was lost in the ruckus created by the defendants and their
Dr.GRR, J
crp_1614_2019
henchmen. Inspite of diligent search, the plaintiff could not trace it out and lost
it forever. However, the respondent No.1 - plaintiff was in possession of a
photocopy of it and as such filed the petition seeking permission to lead
secondary evidence of the transaction dated 12.02.2008. The trial court on
considering that the respondent No.1 - plaintiff had stated about the loss of the
said document in his plaint itself and that the petitioner had also filed other
receipts, which were original and stamped, allowed the petition. There was no
illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial court to set aside the same and
prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
8. Perused the record.
9. The respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of
contract basing on an oral agreement to purchase the suit schedule property,
which was a residential house for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. As per the
plaint, the plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs.90,000/- to defendants 1 and 2 on
different occasions ranging from 1997 to 2008 towards part payment of the sale
consideration, but the defendants 1 and 2 sold the property to defendant No.3.
The plaintiff further stated in his plaint that the defendant No.3 colluded with
defendants 1 and 2 and demolished the house bearing No.3-16, an adjoining
house of the schedule property which also belonged to him and stole the
building material and other material kept in it. On coming to know about the
Dr.GRR, J
crp_1614_2019
highhanded actions of the defendants and their henchmen, the plaintiff rushed to
the spot. There was scuffle. People gathered there. The plaintiff showed the
papers to the elders who gathered there including the defendants. The
defendants stole the receipt dated 12.02.2008 in the melee. The plaintiff did not
notice it due to the stampede deliberately created by the defendants and their
henchmen. The plaintiff recently noticed about the theft of the receipt dated
12.02.2008. However, a photocopy of the same remained in his possession, as
such sought permission of the Court to lead secondary evidence.
10. The defendants 1 and 2 denied in their written statement that there was
any agreement between them and the plaintiff. They contended that the plaintiff
had not filed any proof of the sale agreement. Filing of the Xerox copy of the
receipt and pleading that he lost the original itself would show the ill intention
to grab the suit. The receipts filed by the plaintiff were created one on different
dates and they would not support the case. The suit was not maintainable
without the sale agreement. Mere filing of the receipts would not confirm any
pleadings of the suit of the plaintiff. They further contended that the suit
schedule property was sold by them to defendant No.3 and possession was
delivered and prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
11. A separate written statement was filed by defendant No.3.
Dr.GRR, J
crp_1614_2019
12. As seen from the pleadings, there was no written sale agreement between
the parties. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on an
oral agreement. The receipts filed are also pertaining to the period ranging from
1997 to 2008 on different dates. The petition was filed under Section 65(c) of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking
permission to file a photocopy of the acknowledgment of the sale consideration
of the suit house by defendants 1 and 2, dated 12.02.2008. The suit was of the
year 2009. The petition was filed in the year 2018 i.e. nine years after filing the
suit. The plaint also would not disclose when the scuffle took place between the
plaintiff and defendants and when the plaintiff had lost the said receipt.
13. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that when the
plaintiff has got number of receipts, his stating that he lost only one receipt
dated 12.02.2008 in the ruckus was also a deliberate story created by the
plaintiff for the purpose of filing the suit. The defendants 1 and 2 never
admitted with regard to issuance of receipt dated 12.02.2008.
14. The photocopy of the receipt would not come under secondary evidence,
as there was no original document with anybody. If there was any document in
original or produced before any authority, secondary evidence could be allowed
with regard to the said document. The plaintiff though pleaded in the plaint that
defendants 1 and 2 had stolen the said receipt, had not lodged any report before
Dr.GRR, J
crp_1614_2019
the Police for its recovery before filing the suit. No foundation was laid by the
respondent No.1 - plaintiff to lead secondary evidence. The photocopy was a
suspicious document, which ought not to have been permitted by the trial court
to be brought into evidence.
15. Considering the facts of the case, as the existence, execution and
authenticity of the original document was not established by the respondent
No.1 - plaintiff before seeking permission to lead secondary evidence and as the
respondent No.1 - plaintiff failed to satisfactorily prove that the original receipt
was lost, destroyed or un-available without his fault except making an averment
in the plaint and petition and as the photocopy is not an authenticated document,
allowing the same to be brought into evidence by the trial court is considered as
an erroneous order.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Manisha Mahendra Gala and Others v.
Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani and Others (cited supra) also observed in para
No.36 that the photocopy of a document is inadmissible in evidence.
17. Hence, it is considered fit to allow the revision by setting aside the order
dated 03.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.278 of 2018 in O.S.No.4 of 2009 by the
learned Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, Rangareddy District.
Dr.GRR, J
crp_1614_2019
18. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order
dated 03.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.278 of 2018 in O.S.No.4 of 2009 by the
learned Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, Rangareddy District.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 13.06.2025
Nsk.
