Telangana High Court
B. Venkatram Reddy vs P. Padmaja on 20 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3135 of 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality
and validity of the order dated 11.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.805 of
2024 in O.S.No.1418 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Kushaiguda, whereunder an application filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC praying the
Court to grant leave for receiving certified copies of deposition and
judgment in C.C.No.36 of 2013 was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for
petitioner and Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for respondents.
3. The petitioner is plaintiff and the respondents are defendants
in the suit before the trial Court. For convenience, the parties are
hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.
4. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1418 of 2022 against the
defendants for declaration of title and consequently, to order
cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.10209/03, dated
27.08.2003. Along with the plaint, he has filed certified copies of
certain documents. Later, during the pendency of the suit, the
plaintiff filed the present application stating that copies of the
LNA, J
documents filed along with the plaint are not legible and therefore,
he prayed the trial Court to receive clear certified copies of the two
documents, i.e., deposition of one Sri Gangadhar Reddy and the
judgment in CC.No.36 of 2013, dated 23.10.2013.
5. The defendants filed counter resisting the said application on
the ground that the evidence on plaintiff's side was closed and the
matter was coming up for cross-examination of DW-1 and at that
stage, the application was filed only to fill up the lacuna in the case.
Further, a specific objection was taken that deposition of a living
person cannot be received and hence, prayed to dismiss the
application.
6. The trial Court vide impugned order dismissed the
application mainly on the ground that the plaintiff failed to show
sufficient and adequate cause to receive certified copies of the
aforesaid documents. It has further observed that the application
was filed after lapse of ten years from the date of filing of plaint
and the said delay of ten years is not sufficiently explained.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that
the reasons assigned by the trial Court while dismissing the
application are untenable and in fact, contrary to record. He further
LNA, J
contended that the plaintiff has not filed any new documents, he
has only sought to receive clear certified copies, as the copies filed
along with the plaint are not legible. He further contended that in
view of establishment of new Courts, the case bundles have been
transferred to new Courts and it has taken considerable time to
locate and obtain certified copies of the aforesaid documents. It is
specifically contended that the observation of the trial Court that
there is delay of ten years is factually incorrect since the certified
copies were obtained on 24.02.2024 and the application was filed
on 01.05.2025, therefore, the trial Court ought to have entertained
the application.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/defendants
contended that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application
since the plaintiff filed the same belatedly only after closure of
evidence on his side and when the matter was coming for cross-
examination of DW-1 and hence, there is no illegality or
irregularity in the impugned order and prayed the Court to dismiss
the Revision Petition.
9. Perusal of record would disclose that the plaintiff sought to
take on record the certified copies of two documents only on the
LNA, J
ground that copies filed earlier along with the plaint are not legible
and therefore, it necessitated him to file clear certified copies of the
said documents. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not filed new
documents and in fact, the same are more clear certified copies of
the documents which were filed along with the plaint. Furthermore,
if the contents of the documents are legible, it can be easily
confronted, if necessary, to the witnesses and also helps the Court
for better appreciation of the case and adjudication of the lis.
Insofar as admissibility of those documents is concerned, the same
can be examined by the trial Court once the documents are taken
on record, including the objection taken by the defendants that
deposition of a living person cannot be received. Therefore, this
Court does not find any reason to dismiss the said application. In
the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court erred in
dismissing the application and accordingly, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the
impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.805 of 2024 in
O.S.No.1418 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Kushaiguda, stands allowed.
LNA, J
11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:20.03.2025
dr
