APHC010543452024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 3080/2024 Between: Muripindi(gorle) Saroja and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Minti Venkataswamy ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M BALASUBRAHMANYAM The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The respondent herein-plaintiff filed suit, i.e., O.S.No.219 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, for declaration of title and for consequential relief to restrain the defendants and their men and servants in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property of the plaintiff, his men and servants in the manner they like. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit O.S.No.219 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. 3. The respondent herein-plaintiff filed I.A.No.378 of 2024 under Section 151 C.P.C. requesting the Court to receive the documents and permit him to include them in the list appended to the plaint. 4. The petitioners herein/defendants have filed their counter, asserting that the petition is liable to be dismissed for mentioning wrong provision of law, moreover the documents sought to be marked as the personal documents of another person and the petition is aimed to cover up the laches in the cross-examination of P.W.1 by creating the so-called documents. It is further asserted that unless the petitioner 3 fulfils the requirements of Section 63, 64, 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, the petitioner cannot be permitted to introduce such documents even as secondary evidence. 5. On considering the contentions of both the petitioner and the respondents, the learned trial Court Judge has allowed the petition, vide order dated 06.09.2024 on the ground that the proposed documents are very much necessary to the petitioner in support of his case, as such, the learned trial Court Judge allowed the present petition subject to proof and relevancy. 6. The said order was assailed in the present Civil Revision Petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants would submit that the learned trial Court Judge has erred in allowing the petition, as the documents are photostat copies of the original documents and Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act has to be read along with Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and such secondary evidence must be authenticated against the original and also non-submission of the original is not due to any fault by the party relying on the same. It is also contended that under Section 86 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is a presumption of authenticity of certified copies of foreign judicial 4 records, but such presumption is available, only if such certification is made by a representative of the Central Government of such country not only by a judicial clerk in such country as is the case in the impugned documents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein-defendants has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.Narasimha Rao and others v. Y.Venkata Lakshmi and another1, for the proposition that photostat copy per se is not inadmissible in evidence and it is inadmissible because it is not further been certified by the representative of the Central Government in the United States as required by Section 86 of the Indian Evidence Act ad the expression “certified copy” of a foreign judgment in Section 14 of the Code has to be read consistent with the requirements of Section 86 of the Evidence Act. 9. It is also contended that the impugned order is not a reasoned order. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order in I.A.No.378 of 2024 in O.S.No.219 of 2016 dated 06.09.2024. 1 (1991) 3 SCC 451 5 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff would submit that the suit is filed for declaration of title and the documents were received by the Court subject to proof and relevancy and under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C., a document can be received by the Court on his behalf at the hearing of the suit and he would further submit that the Court received all documents only subject to proof and relevancy and hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. However, the learned trial Court Judge has allowed the petition subject to proof and relevancy of the documents. The additional documents that were received by the Court below were not marked and the additional documents that were received shall be allowed to get marked, subject to proof, admissibility and relevancy only. 12. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 28.01.2025 siva 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3080 OF 2024 Date: 28.01.2025 siva