APHC010097932026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 636/2026 Between: 1. MOLLA ALLA BAKSHI,, S/O. LATE MOLLA HASAN, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, MUSLIM, OCC. RTD. RTC EMPLOYEE, R/O. 27TH WARD , PONNUR TOWN, PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MOLLA MOHAMMAD USMAN, S/O. MOLLA ALLA BAKSHI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS , MUSLIM, OCC.RTD EMPLOYEE IN POLICE DEPARTMENT, R/O. MEDIKONDURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. MOLLA NASIRUN SULTHANA, W/O. GAJI BASHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, MUSLIM , R/O. NOBLE COURT STREET, SLOPE S/2 UNITED KINGDOM ( UK ). 3. MOLLA HUMERA SULTANA, W/O. GAZI BASHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MUSLIM , R/O. PONNUR,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. SYED GAJI BASHA, S/O. LATE SYED ALLA BAKSHI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, MUSLIM , R/O. NOBLE COURT STREET, MUTT STREET SLOPE S/2 UNITED KINGDOM ( UK ) (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES) ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be 2 RRR, J C.R.P.No.636 of 2026 pleased topleased to set aside the order dated 22-01-2026 passed in I.A . No. 426 of 2018 in O.S.No.75 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge,( Senior Division ) Bapatla IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Stay all further proceedings in O S No. 75 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) Bapatla pending disposal of the above Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PHANI KIRAN.M 3 RRR, J C.R.P.No.636 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: The 1st respondent herein had moved O.S.No.75 of 2009 before the learned Principal Civil (Senior Division) Judge, Bapatla, against the petitioner herein and the respondents 2 to 4, who are the family members of the respondent, for partition of certain property. 2. The claim of the respondent is dependent upon a partition list, which is said to have been prepared in the year 1989. The respondent contended that this partition list was available with the 1st defendant in the suit, who is the petitioner herein, and that he only had a Xerox copy of the said list. With a view to adduce secondary evidence, the respondent called upon the 1st defendant to produce the original partition list. This claim of the respondent was disputed by the 1st defendant, who contended that the said partition list is a fabrication and that the respondent was seeking to mark the document, which is a rank forgery. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.426 of 2018, for permission to adduce secondary evidence, by way of filing the Xerox copy of the partition list, which is said to be in his possession. 3. The Trial Court, had earlier dismissed this application, by an order, dated 14.03.2023. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the 1st respondent approached this Court, by way of C.R.P.No.1368 of 2023. This Revision Petition was disposed of by this Court, on 14.08.2023, setting aside the order 4 RRR, J C.R.P.No.636 of 2026 of the Trial Court with a further direction to the Trial Court to consider the said application and to pass orders, after giving reasons. 4. After remand, the matter was again taken up by the Trial Court and the application was allowed, on 22.01.2026. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said application could not have been allowed, on various grounds. It is contended that the document itself is a rank forgery and the 1st respondent, who is a police constable, in the area, has created the said document to raise claims, which are untenable in the suit. The document requires stamp duty and no proceedings, under the Stamp Act, are permissible for admitting such a document, as such impounding, can be carried out only on the basis of the original document and not a Xerox copy; the relief sought in the application was for permission to mark the document and the Trial Court has effectively allowed that plea without going into the question of admissibility of the document. 6. A reading of the order of the Trial Court would show that the Trial Court had merely permitted the respondent to produce the document. Such permission cannot be treated as a finding on the admissibility of the document. It would always be open to the petitioner to object to the marking of 5 RRR, J C.R.P.No.636 of 2026 such document, on any of the grounds available to the petitioner. Such grounds would include the question of whether the document was genuine; a genuine Xerox copy of a properly prepared list of partition; and whether such list of partition requires to be stamped and registered; and the necessary signatures are found in the said list; as well as the fact that the document was not registered or stamped. 7. The basic requirements for adducing secondary evidence are that the persons seeking to adduce secondary evidence would have to call upon the person who is in possession of the original document. In the event of such person disclaiming possession of such document or disputing the existence of such document, it would be open to the persons seeking to adduce secondary evidence, to produce copies of such documents, for the purpose of adducing secondary evidence. The Court, at the stage of granting such permission, would only be looking at whether the necessary steps, required under law, had been complied with. Granting permission to produce document would not mean that the Court has held that the document is admissible or otherwise. It is only when the document is put to a witness that the question of admissibility of the document would arise and it would always be open to the parties, at that stage, to raise objections to the marking of such documents, on any of the grounds, that would be available including relevancy, and admissibility of the document. 6 RRR, J C.R.P.No.636 of 2026 8. In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to raise all grounds, if necessary regarding the admissibility of the said document as and when such document is sought to be marked. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date:06.03.2026 MJA 7 RRR, J C.R.P.No.636 of 2026 155 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 636/2026 Date:06.03.2026 MJA