THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5669 OF 2012 DATED 19th DECEMBER, 2014 Between:
Solthi Raja Goud and others … Petitioners and Donthi Jayapal Reddy and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5669 OF 2012 O R D E R The defendants in O.S.No.1072 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, are the petitioners herein. The plaintiffs therein, being the respondents herein, filed I.A.No.1080 of 2008 in the suit under Section 65[c] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to permit them to adduce secondary evidence in the form of Xerox copies of the sale certificate issued in E.P.No.17 of 1978 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, copy of the warrant issued to the bailiff, report filed by the bailiff, panchanama, delivery of possession and receipt executed by the husband of the plaintiff in O.S. No.1012 of 2004. This petition was filed on the ground that the originals were destroyed as per the copying section of the District Court, Warangal.
By order dated 05.05.2010, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, allowed this petition permitting the plaintiffs to adduce secondary evidence as aforestated. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners herein, being the defendants in the suit, filed I.A.No.1616 of 2010 in I.A.No.1080 of 2008 in O.S.No.1072 of 2004 under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC praying that the trial Court review its order dated 05.05.2010. By order dated 17.09.2012, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Hence, this revision.
Perusal of the order under revision reflects that the trial Court found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. The trial Court considered the issue again on merits and found that no irregularity had been committed.
It is an admitted fact that the originals of the records in question were destroyed. That being so, the application for secondary evidence was justified and this Court finds no error in exercise of the jurisdiction by the trial Court, be it originally or in review.
The civil revision petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim stay dated 15.11.2012 shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
SANJAY KUMAR, J 19th DECEMBER, 2014
Svv