Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/375/2025 of K. Nirmal Rao, Vs Sanku Vijaya Kumar, on 31 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT:THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 375/2025 Between: 1. K. NIRMAL RAO,, W/O. K.P. RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 RESIDING OF D.NO.4/3, NAJU MANSION, WODE HOUSE ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA STATE. 2. SHAHNAZ B.A.
APHC010074922025
IN TH
PRESENT:THE HON
CIVIL R
Between:
1. K. NIRMAL RAO,
RESIDING OF D.
COLABA, MUMBAI,
2. SHAHNAZ B.A. KH
YEARS, RESIDENT
SINGH ROAD, CO
3. SANKU KAMALA
AGED 72YEARS
NO.2,N S.B. SING
STATE.
1. SANKU
VIJAYA
D.NO.44-7-5,
MA
KAKINADA
2. SMT SANKU LAKS
44 YEARS, HOU
AGANNAICKPUR, K
3. PINASIMHAM RAV
YEARS, D.NO.38-1
4. CHINTA SUBBARA
D.NO.53-1-14/1,
N
KAKINADA.
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
OURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEE
REVISION PETITION NO: 375/2025
, W/O. K.P. RAO, AGED ABOUT
NO.4/3, NAJU MANSION, WODE H
, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
AN @ VIMALA KHAN,, W/O. AJIJ KH
T OF FLAT NO.22/23, BELA COUR
LABA, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA ST
(UNMARRIED),, D/O. LATE VENK
RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.22/23,
GH ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI, MA
...P
AND
KUMAR,
S/O.
GOVINDARAJULU
ALLIPUDIVARI
STREET,
JAGA
SHMI SULOCHANA, W/O. VIJAYA K
SE-WIFE, D.NO.44-7-5,MALLIPUDIV
KAKINADA.
VI, S/O. PRABHAKARA RAO, HIND
10-6, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
AO, S/O. NARAYANAMURTHY, AGE
NAGABABUGARI
STREET,
JAGA
RC,J
DESH
EMALAPATI
T 75 YEARS,
HOUSE ROAD,
HAN, AGED 74
RT NO.2,N S.B.
TATE.
KATESWARLU,
BELA COURT
AHARASHTRA
PETITIONER(S)
U,
AGED
ANNAICKPUR,
KUMAR, AGED
VARI STREET,
DU, AGED 46
ED 60 YEARS,
ANNAICKPUR,
RC,J
5. PULIPATI PRASAD, S/O. SRIRAM MURTHY, AGED 39 YEARS, D.NO.
17- 5-3, SAPPAVARI VEEDHI, SITHAMPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY
URBAN MANDAL.
6. SATHI LAKSHMANA REDDY, S/O. APPA REDDY, AGED 34 YEARS, D.NO.4-1, RAMALAYAM
STREET,
POLAMURU,
ANAPARTHI
MANDAL
7. SATHI SWARNA LAKSHMI, D/O. APPA REDDY, AGED 33 YEARS, D.NO.4-1, RAMALAYAM
STREET,
POLAMURU,
ANAPARTHI
MANDAL
...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 pleased to allow the CRP and set aside the order in IA.NO.93 OF 2025 in OS.
190 OF 2016, Dated 22-01-2025, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada and resultantly allow the said IA.no. 93 of 2025 in OS.No. 190 of 2016 as prayed for and grant IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 to grant stay of the suit in O.S.No.190 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, as the suit is posted final argument and if the same is proceeded without marking the necessary documents which are necessary for the adjudication of the disputes between the parties, pending disposal of the C.R.P., failing which the petitioners would suffer serious loss and damage.
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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 may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to service notice on the 1st,2nd and 5th respondents herein by way of substituted service by publishing the notice in a daily newspaper having vide circulation and pass RC,J
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.M BALANAGA SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.K VENKATESH
2.SURAGANI VIJAYA KUMAR
RESERVED ON
27.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON
01.04.2026
UPLOADED ON
07.04.2026
RC,J
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada in I.A.No.93 of 2025 in O.S.No.190 of 2016.
2. The petitioners are the petitioners/plaintiffs, while respondents are the respondents/defendants in I.A.No.93 of 2025 in O.S.No.190 of 2016.
3. The facts that led to filing of these Civil Revision Petitions, in brief, are that:
(i) The petitioners filed the suit vide O.S.No.190 of 2016 for declaration of their title over the plaint schedule property and for mesne profits. In the said suit, they filed petition vide I.A.No.93 of 2025 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to permit them to mark photocopies of correspondence between the District Collector and Tahsildar, Kakinada Mandal and the correspondence between the Tahsildar, Kakinada Mandal and Sanku Venkateswarlu- father of plaintiff no.2, copy of letter received from Kakinada Municipality, the correspondence between the Tahsildar, Kakinada Mandal and the Commanding Officer, Ambulance Platoon, ASC, Wadala and the resolution RC,J
passed by Municipal Corporation. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 resisted the claim made by the petitioners by filing counter.
(ii) Upon considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge, dismissed the petition.
(iii) The said dismissal order has been questioned in this Civil Revision Petition.
4. Heard Sri M.Balanaga Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Sri Suragani Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
5. Sri M. Balanaga Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition and grounds of revision would contend that the documents, which are correspondence between the officials, being public documents, are very much essential to prove that the land was allotted to father of the plaintiffs and as they lost originals and their efforts to get certified copies under Right to Information Act could not get fructified since the officials endorsed that they are not available in their office, they filed petition under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to mark the documents as secondary evidence. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge upon erroneous view of the matter that RC,J
since document nos.1 & 3 proposed to be marked are not addressed to father of plaintiffs and as such they cannot be in their custody, that the documents do not speak about actual allotment of land to father of plaintiffs and that affidavit of plaintiffs is not filed but for by their counsel, dismissed the petition. He would further contend that since the plaintiffs have laid the foundation of leading of secondary evidence either in the plaint or in the evidence, the secondary evidence cannot be ousted for consideration only because an application for permission to lead secondary evidence was not filed. He would further submit that the documents would prove the fact that the land was allotted in favour of plaintiffs’ father and that it was in his possession and hence it is very essential to mark the documents to substantiate the defence of the plaintiffs, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.
In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on Dhanpat vs. Sheo Ram (deceased) through Legal representatives and others1.
6. On the other hand, Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Sri Suragani Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4, while reiterating the contents of the counter would contend that since the
1. (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 209
RC,J
correspondence was never addressed to father of plaintiffs it is not known how they could came into their possession and further the documents dated 12.9.1969 and 30.06.1997 does not contain the seal of the office from which they were sent and when the genuineness of the documents is doubtful and as there is no original document for comparison, the said document cannot be received in evidence more particularly as secondary evidence. They would further contend that the learned trial Judge upon careful analysis of the facts rightly dismissed the petition and the said well considered order does not require any interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
8. In the suit filed for declaration and recovery of possession, the plaintiffs filed petition under section 65 of the Evidence Act to permit them to mark the Xerox copies of correspondence between the District collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and the Tahsildar, Kakinada as secondary evidence. The suit was at the stage of arguments.
9. According to the plaintiffs the original documents were misplaced and their attempts to get certified copies of the documents proved futile and RC,J
hence they sought to mark the documents as secondary evidence invoking section 65 of the Evidence Act.
10. The document nos.1 & 3 sought to be marked as secondary evidence is said to be correspondence between the District Collector and Tahsildar and admittedly they were not addressed to father of the plaintiffs and hence there is no chance of original being with the father of the plaintiffs, as rightly held by the learned trial Judge. Further, Photostat copies of the document nos. 4 and 5 are not filed before the Court and without filing the said document the plaintiffs are seeking the relief to mark them as exhibits.
11. Since the documents are photocopies and originals of them are not at all available to test their veracity and since none of the documents show allotment of the subject land in favour of the plaintiffs, the learned trial Judge had rightly rejected the relief.
12. The facts of the case covered by the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are entirely different from the facts of the case on hand and thus the law enunciated therein cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
RC,J
13. In view of the above, the impugned order does not suffer from illegality and as such does not require interference of this Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition being meritless deserves dismissal.
14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 1ST APRIL, 2026.
RR