CRP/5185/2010 of T. Jammanna Vs Dhanur Ayyamma on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5185 of 2010

The petitioner filed O.S.No.1483 of 2006 in the Court of thePrincipal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool against the respondents forthe relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit scheduleproperty. The trial of the suit commenced and it is in progress. Arelinquishment deed, dated 25.05.1994, relied upon by thepetitioner is marked as Ex.A1. The respondents raised a plea thatEx.A1 is a fabricated document. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1556 of2010 under Order 13 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to return theoriginal of Ex.A1. According to him, the document is needed tomortgage the property for securing loan, which is required forfurther studies of his daughter. The application was opposed bythe respondents. They pleaded that the question as to whetherEx.A1 is fabricated, can be examined only when the original isavailable and if the document is taken away, such a possibilitydoes not exist. Through its order, dated 25.10.2010, the trial Courtdismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision.

Heard Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for therespondents.

In the ordinary course, the request made by the petitioneri.e. for return of Ex.A1 is almost innocuous and deserves to beacceded to, as a matter of routine. Whenever such requests aremade, the certified copies are kept on record and the originals arereturned. In the instant case, however, the respondents took the plea that Ex.A1 is fabricated one. The presence of the originaldocument on record of the Court is very much essential to enablethe respondents to take steps under Section 45 of the IndianEvidence Act. An exercise under that provision cannot beundertaken vis-à-vis a certified copy. Therefore, no exception canbe taken to the view expressed by the trial Court as to the requestmade by the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his clientwould not be able to secure loan on the basis of a certified copy. If that be so, an observation can be made to the effect that thecertified copy of the document that may be issued by the trialCourt shall be treated as a true replica of original document for thelimited purpose of processing of loan application. The agency,which is approached for loan, can also be given an opportunity toverify the original and the Court shall accord such permission asand when requested.

With the above direction, the civil revision petition isdisposed of upholding the order under revision. The trial Courtshall endeavour to dispose of the suit, within a period of three (3)months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

______________________

L.NARASIMHA

REDDY,J

Dt:31.12.2010.kdl