Anandapu Srinivas vs Boinapally Rani

The Civil Revision Petition No. 1953 of 2021 is filed against the order passed in I.A. No. 205 of 2019 in O.S. No. 274 of 2012, dated 06.05.2021 on the file of the VII Addl. Junior Civil Judge at Warangal. The I.A. is filed to permit him to lead evidence recorded through electronic media by condoning the delay.

The Civil Revision Petition No. 1954 of 2021 is filed against the order passed in I.A. No. 347 of 2019 in O.S. No. 274 of 2012 dated 06.05.2021 on the file of the VII Addl. Junior Civil Judge at Warangal. The I.A. is filed to reopen the evidence of D.W.1.

The Civil Revision Petition No. 1956 of 2021 is filed against the order passed in I.A. No. 206 of 2019 in O.S. No. 274 of 2012 dated 06.05.2021 on the file of the VII Addl. Junior Civil Judge at Warangal. The I.A. is filed to recall DW.1.

All the three interlocutory applications were dismissed by the trial Court against which the Civil Revision Petitions are preferred. Petitioner herein mainly contended that he recorded the conversations between the parties and intended to file the vediographs on the advice of the counsel. The said conversation was admitted by DW-2 but the trial Court dismissed the application as it was recorded during the pendency of the suit. It was observed by the trial Court that the documents sought for to receive under electronic media evidence, there is no authentication for the same as contemplated under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.

Now it is for the Court to see whether the C.R.Ps are to be allowed or not.

O.S. No. 274 of 2012 is filed by the plaintiff viz., Boinapally Rani against defendant viz., Anandapu Srinivas for injunction in which plaintiff states that she is absolute owner of her house plot admeasuring to an extent of 120 sq. Yards comprised in Sy.No. 118/C of Waddepally Revenue Village, situated at Snehanagar, Hanumakonda, Warangal District. She purchased the house plot with an intention to construct a house under registered sale deed document No. 8289/2009 dated 17.12.2009 for valid sale consideration and she was inducted into possession on the date of purchase. When the defendant tried to encroach into her land she filed the suit for injunction and during the pendency of the case defendant in the suit filed the above applications after examination of DW-1 and marking of Exs.B.1 to Exs.B.30. He stated that in fact he purchased the suit schedule plot in the year 2011 and constructed compound wall. When he is trying to dig a borewell in the suit schedule property an altercation took place stating that the plaintiff and her husband purchased plot No.118/C to an extent of 120 sq. Yards and he recorded the conversation of Dw-2 and video-graphed. It reveals that plaintiff and her husband purchased Plot No. 118/C to an extent of 120 sq. Yards and it was executed by A. Chander and the said conversation between them was admitted by DW-2. He intends to mark the same and requests this court to permit him to lead the electronic evidence.

In a counter filed by the respondent/plaintiff stating that it is her duty to prove prima facie possession over the suit schedule property and she already got examined 4 witnesses but the said applications are filed without any basis and it was created and brought into existence after her evidence and he intended to file the same at belated stage. In the vediographs the date, time and year were not shown. As such she objected the receiving of evidence recalling of DW-1 and reopening of evidence of DW-1 also. Considering the arguments of both sides the trial Court dismissed the applications.

Admittedly the suit is filed on 02.03.2012 and the recordings were made prior to filing of the suit on 17th, 18th and 29th of February, 2012 but he has not mentioned the said recordings in his written statement and he filed the applications only on 12.03.2019 after 7 years and he has not explained as to why he kept quiet for all these days. He intended to file only mobile vediographs which can be tampered with as they were not filed at the earliest point of time. Moreover, he is not supposed to record conversations between the parties without the permission of the parties. As such, it is not admissible in evidence and he has not enclosed certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act before recording electronic evidence, to mark the photographs recorded by way of drone camera when advocate-Commissioner petition was dismissed. He got photographs of the suit schedule property through drone without any permission of the Court.

The trial Court after considering the aspects rightly dismissed the applications. This Court does not find merits to interfere with the same. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed by confirming the orders of the trial Court.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.