CRP/4587/2025 of Smt. Sunita Agarwal Vs G. Sudershan on 6 February 2026

ORDER:

The instant Civil Revision Petition is filecl by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India rr ,sailing the order dated 09.10.2025 in I.A.No.150 of 2025 in O.l .No.301 of 2Ol4 passed by the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad (for short, the "impugned order" .

2. Heard Mr. R.A. Achuthanand, learnecl :ounsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner filed the above I.A., viz., t.a No.15O of 2025 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence AcL. lB72 read with

Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to send voice record of PW- I along with pen-drive for comparison of voice of PW. 1 to be sent to central Forensic science Laboratory, RamanthaPur, HYderabad.

4. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the above I.A.

5. karned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conversation that has been recorded by the petitioner was of the year 20 13 where there was an agreement entered between the parties in respect of a lease and monthly rent agreed upon' and whereas the rate of yearly enhancement that is agreed upon is contrary to contents of the plaint and also evidence which the respondents intend to adduce' In those circumstances' to dispute the same, the petitioner herein wants the conversation that was recordedbyhimtobeveriliedwiththeCentralForensicScience Laboratory, Ramanthapur for expert opinion so as to prove that it was his voice alone that had been recorded'

6. At the outset, this Court is of the vie'"v that such a relief sought for by the petitioner would not be entertained at all for the reason that the above suit, viz. O'S'No'3Ol of 2Ol4 is a suit fil'ed by the respondents under Section 28 of Civil Procedure Code' I r I I I

I

1908 read with Order VI RuIe 1 of Civil Pro,: :dure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to direct the petition()r herein to Vacate and hand over vacant and peaceful posses;ion of the suit schedule property and also to pay future Mesn : Prohts from the date of hling of suit till date of delivery of ve< ant and peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property. lherefore, in the opinion of this Court, the burden of proof rest; on the petitioner herein to prove his case in respect of jural re.r tionship, and he cannot be permitted to use digital voice that the petrtioner alleges to have used for recording at the time of enterir 3 into agreement with the respondents. Such a recourse is neill er advisable nor would be one'which would be considered to be e ;ubstantial proof in determining the claim of petitioner. The parrr: ; before the Trial Court have to lead their case and lead evidence t i sed upon cogent material, oral and documentar5r evidence. Thr:. efore, the claim put up by the petitioner, in the opinion of this ( ourt, cannot be decided primarily retrying upon the so-called di11 :al voice that is available to the petitioner and which is alleg,: I to have been sequentially recorded by the petitioner and saved t thereafter in a pen-drive.

7. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court ;s of the opinion that the view taken by the Trial Court while dismr: sing I.A.No.150

of 2025 in O.S.No.3O I of 2Ol4 cannot be found fault with nor can it be said to be perverse or contrary to law.

8. The Civil Revision Petition therefore being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

9. As a consequence, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P.PONNA KRISHNA SI ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad,

2. One CC to SRI. R A ACHUTHANAND Advocate IOPUC]

3. Two CD Copies VM/BA &N l i I I I I I I I I

I HIGH COURT DATED:,O61O2I2026 ORDFR CRP.No.4S87 of 2025 ,JT t o c) THT S e il 1c )nrq 'ac t2 * * OISMISSING THE CIVIL REV]SION PETITION WITH OUT COS:.: KS zclzlrc I :