Smt. K.Jayamma v. Syed Zainulla Abedin
Case brief
What is this about?
This judgment revises a civil court order seeking to admit late-filmed postal documents. The court read down the lower order to require further proof for certified copies under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting the original lacked attestation due to unavailability.
What did the court decide?
Order read down; documents received subject to further proof under Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
What the court decided
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2512 OF 2016
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of the order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.228 of 2016 in O.S.No.574 of 2007. By the said order, the trial Court accepted the plea of the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC and received the three documents sought to be placed on record. Aggrieved thereby, the sole defendant in the suit is before this Court.
Perusal of the order under revision reflects that the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff sought leave of the trial Court to place on record the following three documents:
‘1. Certified copy of orders passed in Case No.C/4362/2011 dt.217-2012 passed by Spl.Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Certified copy of Orders passed in Case No.D5/4893/2012 dt.3110-2015 passed by Joint Collector 1, Ranga Reddy District. 3. Certified copy of reply given by Postal Authorities on behalf of petitioner by condoning the delay.’
Sri J.Ashvini Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/sole defendant, would state that his client has no objection to the first two documents being placed on record but her grievance is with regard to receipt of the third document, viz., the certified copy of the reply given by the postal authorities.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave granted by trial court to place unattested postal proof on record under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC should be read down to require further proof of such documentary evidence.
Whether order of trial court manifesting non-application of mind in accepting unattested photocopy can be imported to grant interim permission under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC.
Whether receipt of certified copies or photocopies under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC must be subject to further proof under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
SOLE DEFENDANT IN THE SUIT
- respondent
1ST RESPONDENT/1ST PLAINTIFF
Coram
SANJAY KUMAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRP/2512/2016
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court