Allowed

Mathangi Mondaiah v. M. Bhoomaiah

Telangana HC10 Nov 2017CRP/4536/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition, directing the trial Court to summon a Tahsildar employee to produce original pahani registers from 1990-91 to 2003-04, citing alleged doubts about the genuineness of certified copies.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is allowed; the trial Court is directed to secure original pahani patrikas from the Tahsildar, Thimmapur, at the expenses of the petitioners for further trial.

Mathangi Mondaiah Vs M. Bhoomaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶2

C.R.P. No.4536 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard both sides and perused the grounds urged in the revision and the impugned order of the lower Court dated 28.08.2014 in I.A. No.919 of 2014 besides the certified copy to be filed as a public document to rely; the factual matrix including from the order of the lower Court shows that the petitioners/ defendants 1 to 4 sought to call for the original pahanies from the 1990-91 till 2003-04 and the observation of the lower Court in disposing the petition is that original pahani patrikas which the petitioners/ defendants 1 to 4 sought to be summoned are public documents of which certified copies have already been filed and if at all, they want any further information with regard to original pahani, they can obtain certified copies. Said conclusion is untenable for there is no necessity of obtaining and re-marking of those certified copies of the documents, that too, when it is the contest of the petitioners/ defendants 1 to 4 that those certified copies are not genuine and originals, if called for, it can be proved, it could have been considered to summon.

¶5

Undoubtedly, earlier the Mandal Revenue Officer, Thimmapur, was examined as DW-11 and Faisal Patti was marked as Ex.B31. In the petition, it is sought for production of original Faisal patti of the years 1990-91 to 2003-04. No doubt, leave about what were exhibited on behalf of plaintiff during 2003-05, for further documents, besides certified copies can be obtained, once it is the contest of defendants as referred supra of originals

¶6

¶7

Dr.SSRB,J CRP_4536_2014

¶8

are required to be proved for the certified copies are alleged to be not genuine and the trial Court should have considered for summoning any employee of the office of the Tahsildar, Thimmapur, to produce the original register of the pahani patirkas for the period of 1990-91 to 2003-04, to verify whether there is any difference between the originals and the certified copies in the cross examination and if necessary, to substitute the copies of the originals to exhibit as compared with original in Court proceedings for further proceeding in the suit, which is of the year 2002.

¶9

With these observations, the revision petition is allowed, directing the trial Court to secure pahani patrikas, as sought for, from the office of Tahsildar, Thimmapur, at the expenses of petitioners/ defendants 1to 4, for further trial of the matter and its early disposal.

¶10

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending

¶11

in this revision shall stand closed.

¶12

_____________________________________ JUSTICE Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶13

Date: 10.11.2017 knl

Mathangi Mondaiah v. M. Bhoomaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathangi Mondaiah v. M. Bhoomaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasamsetti Vishnu Pothana , Vasamsetti Appala Raju Vs Smt. v.Anasuya

Punem Suseela Vs Punem Babu Rao

Arava Santoshi Vs Arava Venkatesh

Devarakonda Vani Vs Jasti Amaraswera Rao

Bollineni Prasad Vs Tiruveedula Padmavalli , Padmavathamma

Bala Cut pieces, Vs Andhra Bank, a Government of India Undertaking with