The Hon'ble High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition. The petitioner sought to set aside an order refusing to mark an unapproved layout plan xerox as secondary evidence but allowing the approved layout. The court found no patent illegality or manifest injustice in the lower courts' order. The appeal fails.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5054 OF 2008
ORDER:
Heard Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The present application is filed to set aside the order of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E.A. No.67 of 2008 in E.A. No.24 of 2008 in E.P. No.11 of 2006 dated 20.08.2008.
The petitioner filed the said E.A, under Section 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, requesting the Court to permit her to mark the xerox copy of the lay out plan in respect of the land in Sy Nos.292, 293, 301, 302 and 303 of Jeedimetla village as secondary evidence. The Court below observed that the xerox copy was of an unapproved lay out and could not be received as secondary evidence. Granting liberty to the petitioner to produce the approved lay out copy, the petition filed in E.A. No.67 of 2008 was dismissed.
Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the xerox copy of the lay out can be marked as secondary evidence. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to go into this question in as much as the finding recorded by the Court below is that the xerox copy which the petitioner sought permission to produce, was of an unapproved lay out. The order of the Court below neither suffers from patent illegality nor can the petitioner be said to have suffered manifest injustice, as a
result of the order of the Court below, in as much as the petitioner was accorded liberty to produce a copy of the approved lay out. The order of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad does not necessitate interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
_____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J
17th June 2010 MRKR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the order dismissing the plea for marking an unapproved layout plan xerox as secondary evidence under Section 65 and 66 of the I
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
Ramesh Ranganathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
