HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3689 of 2014 Date : 08-12-2014 Between:
Chalamalla Prathima, D/o.Madhusudhan Reddy, 29 years, R/o.H.No.14-86, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.
and others and Kunati Radhika Devi, W/o.Vijayabhaskar Reddy, 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.303, Star Homes, Domalaguda, Hyderabad and another … Petitioners … Respondents ORDER:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3689 of 2014 This civil revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendants 2 to 7 in O.S.No.61 of 2013 on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge at Miryalguda, calls in question the validity and the legal acceptability of the order dated 28.08.2014 passed by the said Court, permitting to mark a document.
Heard Sri B.Laxman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiff/1st respondent herein. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 1st defendant/2nd respondent herein.
The 1st respondent herein instituted O.S.No.61 of 2013 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22.05.2008 said to have been executed by the 1st defendant/2nd respondent herein. Suit schedule properties are the lands in Sy.Nos.70 and 78, admeasuring Acs.6-14 gts and Acs.10-22 gts situated at Hydelapur village of Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. The 1st defendant filed a written statement, so also the defendants 2 to 7, resisting the suit. During the course of trial, the plaintiff/1st respondent herein wanted to mark the subject agreement of sale dated 22.05.2008 and the learned counsel for the defendants 2 to 7 raised an objection for marking of the same on the ground that since the agreement of sale is a photostat copy but not an original document, the same cannot be marked. The learned VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalguda, passed an order on 28.08.2014, overruling the said objection and permitted the plaintiff/1st respondent herein to mark the said document.
The defendants 2 to 7 assail the said order in the present revision. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 2 to 7/petitioners herein that the order under revision passed by the learned District Judge is highly erroneous, contrary to law, perverse and unsustainable. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the order impugned is opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Indian Registration Act, 1864. It is nextly contended by the learned counsel that the subject document is a photostat copy, as such, marking of the same is impermissible. To bolster his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Hariom Agarwal v. Prakash Chand Malviya
[1]
.
Per contra, it is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/1st respondent herein that the order passed by the Court below is in conformity with the law and there is no illegality, nor any material infirmity which warrants interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/1st respondent herein that the impugned order does not violate, nor contravenes the provisions of either under the Indian Stamp Act, or Indian Registration Act or Indian Evidence Act. It is nextly contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the order passed by the Court below is in accordance with Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In the above backdrop, now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court is, whether the order passed by the Court below is in accordance with law, or whether it requires any correction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ?
The material available before this Court discloses that the 1st respondent herein instituted the present suit for specific performance of agreement of sale said to have been executed by the 1st defendant/2nd respondent herein on 22.05.2008. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the defendants are contesting the said suit by filing written statement. When there was opposition on behalf of the defendants 2 to 7 through their learned counsel for marking the subject document, the learned District Judge answered the said objection by virtue of the impugned order. The material on record available in this Court reveals that the principal objection taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that photostat copy of the documents cannot be marked, nor the plaintiff can be permitted to mark the same in view of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and Indian Registration Act and in view of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act also. As per the impugned order, it would be very much apparent that the subject agreement of sale is a computerized document with original signatures of the plaintiff and the original alleged signatures of the 1st defendant and also the signatures of two attestors. The learned District Judge also took into consideration the factum of issuing notice dated 20.12.2008, requesting the defendants to execute the sale deed while expressing the plaintiff’s readiness to pay the balance sale consideration basing on the agreement of sale dated 22.05.2008. The learned District Judge also referred to the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners herein at paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order and held that the nature of position of the document in the present suit is totally otherwise. The learned District Judge also took into consideration that the body of the document is in original form including the signatures of both the plaintiff and 1st defendant and also the attestors. A perusal of the impugned order clearly and categorically shows that the learned District Judge, while permitting the plaintiff to mark the subject document, assigned cogent and convincing reasons. By duly taking into consideration the entire material available before the Court, the learned District Judge discussed about the obligation of the plaintiff to prove the subject document at paragraph 12 of the impugned order. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hariom Agarwal’s case (1 supra) and the principle laid down therein, in the considered opinion of this Court, would not render any assistance to the petitioner herein in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation, nor any traces of doubt to arrive at a conclusion that the order under challenge does not suffer from any jurisdictional error which warrants interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
For the aforesaid reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed.
A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date: 08.12.2014
siva
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3689 of 2014 Date : 08-12-2014 siva
[1] AIR 2008 SC 166