APHC010479492024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 3015/2024 BETWEEN: Krotha Trinatha Rao ...Petitioner AND Nishtala Subramanya Satya Venkata Kameswara Sanyasi Rao and Others ...Respondent(s) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The petitioner herein who is the plaintiff in the Original Suit filed I.A. for permanent injunction on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram, against the respondents/defendants. 2. The petitioner herein filed I.A. No.155 of 2024 under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. to grant leave to the petitioner to file the documents on such terms and conditions, on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has obtained the documents under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, which could not file earlier. Under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner herein sought information regarding representation made to the District Collector, reply by the Tahsildar, Dattirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District, and letter from the Tahsildar to the District Collector regarding death certificate and legal heir certificate with envelope. The said petition was dismissed by learned trial Judge vide order dated 2nd September, 2024 observing that the petitioner had not given any reason for filing of Xerox copies of the documents along with the petition. As such without giving any reason for non-filing of the received documents under RTI, the Xerox copies of the documents cannot be taken on record. 3 3. The said order was assailed on the ground that the Court below has not assigned any valid and detailed reasons while dismissing the I.A. filed to receive the documents under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The Court can permit marking of Xerox copies as secondary evidence subject to Section 63 and 65 of Indian Evidence Act. 5. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the Petition, the petitioner has not assigned any reason for marking of Xerox copies as secondary evidence. And the Xerox copies as secondary evidence can be marked only on fulfilling the conditions stipulated under Section 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. 6. Therefore, the Court below has rightly observed while dismissing the I.A. filed for marking the Xerox copies of the documents. Hence, this Court found no flaw in the order passed by the Trial Court. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO Date: 22.01.2025 Harin 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO 231 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3015 of 2024 Date: 22.01.2025 Harin