1 APHC010586462024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3208/2024 Between: M Seetha Rami Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND M Vemkat Rami Reddy ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAJA BHOGENDRA NATH S Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 20.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.677 of 2024 in O.S. No.15 of 2017 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool (for short “the trial Court”). 2. The present impugned I.A.No.677 of 2024 was filed by the defendants/petitioners herein under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC seeking to permit them to receive the petition schedule documents on behalf of the petitioners/defendants by condoning the delay. 2 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that at the time of filing of the suit, they filed positive photos along with CD. The said photos were taken with Panasonic Handycam camera of 2nd petitioner’s son. At the time of the filing of written statement, he could not file the Panasonic Handycam original Cassette and he has not filed the certificate with regard to the photos and CD taken from the original cassette of the Panasonic Handycam Camera belongs to his son. The second petitioner’s son M.Bhanu Prakash Reddy has given certificate with regard to photos taken from his Panasonic Camera. Now the petitioners are filing the original Panasonic Handycamcassette and the declaration Certificate given by M Bhanu Prakash Reddy. Therefore the petition schedule documents are essential to prove their case. Hence they filed impugned application IA No.677 of 2024 before the trail Court. But the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2024. Aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed. 4. This Court vide order dated 30.012.2024 while issuing Notice before admission, has granted interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S No.15 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 5. Heard Sri Rajabhogendranath.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, the order under revision is contrary to law, illegal and improper and is liable to be set aside. He submits that the 3 lower court ought to have noted that the relief sought for in the impugned petition will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff and ought to have noted that the authentication being filed by son of the second defendant regarding the cassette should have been appreciated. He further submits that the lower court ought to have seen that the defendants will be subject to irreparable damage and loss, if the impugned petition is not allowed and on the other hand the plaintiff can be given an opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence. 7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for het petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Hemant Gupta v. Ramasubramanian1, wherein the Apex Court held that the rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while denying the allegations made in the petition, submits that, the existence of the alleged Cassette is not pleaded nor deposed by DW1 while speaking about the alleged photos and CD and allegation of taking video by using Panasonic Handycam Camera of alleged witnesses. He further submits that the declaration said to have been filed by M. Bhanu Prakash Reddy is not in concurrence with Section 65(B) (4) of Indian Evidence Act. 9. Perused the material on record. 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533 4 10. Originally, the O.S No.15 of 2017 was filed before the trial Court seeking for declaration of title. The petitioners’ contention is that at the time of filing of the suit, they filed positive photos along with CD and the said photos were taken with Panasonic Handycam Camera of second petitioner’s son. It is also contended that, at the time of filing written statement, he could not file the Panasonic Handycam original cassette and he has not filed the certificate with regard to the photos and CD taken from the original cassette of the Panasonic Handycam camera belongs to his son. 11. So, the learned counsel for the petitioners has already admitted that at the time of filing of suit they filed only positive photos along with CD and they have taken with Panasonic Hadycam Camera of second petitioner’s son. When the Video cassette is available with the petitioners/defendants why they did not file the same along with their written statement is not explained by the petitioners. Further either in the written statement or in the evidence of DW.1 nowhere stated that the second petitioner’s son M.Bhanu Prakash Reddy was present at the time of survey and he recorded the survey with his Panasonic Handycm Camera on 5.11.2013. When there is no reference in the written statement about the presence of said M. Bhanu Prakash Reddy and he videographed the survey with his Panasonic Handycam Camera, it cannot be said that the said M. Bhanu Prakash Reddy was present at the time of survey on 5.11.2013 and he videographed the survey through his Panasonic Handycam Camera. Since the petitioners failed to file the video cassette though the same is available with them since the year 2013 and as there is no reference in the written statement about the presence of the said M. Bhanu Prakash Reddy at the 5 time of survey, the petitioners cannot be permitted to receive the petition schedule documents on their behalf by condoning the delay. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 65(B) (4) of Indian Evidence Act, reads as under; 65B. Admissibility of electronic records. –– (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. xxx… xxxx… xxx (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, –– (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. 13. On a plain reading of the above, as rightly pointed out by the respondents counsel that, the declaration given by M. Bhanu Prakash Reddy is not in accordance with Section 65(B) (4) of Indian Evidence Act. In the declaration it is not mentioned whether the video cassette is in his possession since 5.11.2013 and it is not subjected to tampering. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is observed that, there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. 6 14. Finding no merit in the instant civil revision petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Date: -02-2025 Gvl 7 THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO C.R.P.No.3208 of 2024 Date: 21 .02.2025 Gvl