Allowed

Hussain Mohudduin , Mohd. Hussain Mohiuddin , Amar v. The District Collector

Telangana HC21 Apr 2010CRP/4869/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision petition filed to challenge dismissal of an application to file certified copies of original documents that were misplaced. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that secondary evidence is admissible upon demonstration of diligent search.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The respondents can raise objections for marking of the documents. There shall be no order as to costs.

Hussain Mohudduin , Mohd. Hussain Mohiuddin , Amar Vs… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4869 OF 2007

¶6

Between :

¶7

Hussain Mohiuddin and another .... PETITIONERS

¶8

A N D

¶9

The District Collector, and others. …RESPONDENTS

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶11

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4869 OF 2007

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 06.09.2007 in I.A. No. 1891 of 2007 in O.S. No.478 of 1990, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed to receive the certified copies of documents which were filed in xerox copies earlier, as additional documents as per list by condoning the delay, was dismissed.

¶14

2. The suit was filed for declaration of title and possession in respect of suit property and also permanent injunction restraining the respondents / defendants from assigning or recording the names of other persons and also for correction of the revenue records. The

¶15

original suit was decreed by the trial court and the respondents / defendants preferred an appeal A.S. No.1911 of 2001, and the same was allowed remanding the matter to trial court.

¶16

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that certain documents which are Xerox copies were filed at the time of filing of the suit, but the originals thereof have been misplaced, and could not be traced and so the same have to be replaced with certified copies; that in addition to the above, certain representations given to the respondents have to be marked.

¶17

4. There cannot be any dispute that under Sec.65 of Evidence Act 1872, secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in case the original document has been destroyed or lost. It is not in dispute that the xerox copies of documents were filed along with the plaint. Proper explanation was given that during pendency of case, the original documents were misplaced and not traced later. Now the petitioner obtained certified copies of those documents recently. Where the original has been misplaced and a party has made a diligent search for it and exhausted all the sources and means available for its production, secondary evidence is admissible. But secondary evidence is not to be admitted mechanically or as a matter of course. Sufficient reason must be shown for non-production of the original document.

¶18

5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. However, the respondents can raise objections, if any, for marking of those documents. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

K.C.BHANU. J

¶20

APRIL 21, 2010. YVL

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶22

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2100 OF 2009

¶23

DATED 21.04.2010

Hussain Mohudduin , Mohd. Hussain Mohiuddin , Amar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hussain Mohudduin , Mohd. Hussain Mohiuddin , Amar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bandari Renuka , Revathi Vs Peechu Ramreddy

M/s Telirama Enterprises Ltd., (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Boinpalli Geetha Rani Vs Karandla Sada Shiva

Kasani Dhanalaxmi Vs The Union of India

G. Jagdish Vs Smt. Zakir Unissa Begum

Mekamall Suguna Vs Vootla Ram Mohan Rao