AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aggrieved by the docket order dated 10.03.2020 passed in O.S.No.890 of 2015 on the file of the learned V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the petitioner filed this revision petition.
The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit.
One Mr.K.Adinarayana filed O.S.No.890 of 2015 against the petitioner herein seeking injunction. During the pendency of the suit, he filed an application - I.A.No.70 of 2019 for receiving the document– R.T.I. application given by him to the GHMC and the reply given by it. He also filed another application – I.A.No.69 of 2019 in the suit to recall P.W.1 for marking of the said documents. The plaintiff would assert that during the cross-examination, counsel for the defendant put a question whether premises No.8-1-284.OU/714/5 was allotted to suit schedule property i.e. Plot No.714/5 situated at Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad District, and he also posed another question whether there are any proceedings to that effect. Thereafter, the plaintiff gave an application to the GHMC under RTI Act to provide information and the GHMC gave reply, and thus he wanted to file the same before the Court. Hence, he filed both the applications – one is to receive the documents and another is to mark the said document.
In a common counter filed by the defendant would submit that the said documents are created by the plaintiff in collusion with the GHMC authorities in order to fill up the lacuna and latches in the cross-examination and that the said document has no locus as the GHMC authority is neither the proper person to localize or to identify any property without any survey and it is the table work done at the instance of the plaintiff without even verifying the property or any record from competent authority, and as such, the said document is not admissible in evidence and cannot be considered in a suit for injunction. He would further assert that the plaintiff has to establish his possession in the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. As the present application is filed after commencement of trial and that too after cross-examination of P.W.1 at length, both the Interlocutory Applications are not maintainable and is to be dismissed.
The trial Court after hearing both the learned counsel passed a detailed docket order and allowed the applications and posted the suit on 12.03.2020. But in the last sentence it was typed as ‘... Hence the objection of the counsel for defendant is sustainable not tenable. Hence both parties directed to appear and proceed with the case. Call on 12-03-2020.’ But, in the order copy the word ‘sustainable’ was deleted, and therefore, the revision petitioner would mainly argue that the order is to be set aside on that ground alone. He would also contend that the trial Court failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 74, 75, 77 and 78 of the Indian Evidence Act as the copies furnished under RTI Act are not certified copies. He would also submit that as per Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act if the document is obtained under RTI Act from the competent authority, it can be asked to be taken as a certified copy if the original satisfies the definition of public document, no formal proof of the same is required, and if it is other private document it has to satisfy Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the trial Court ignored all the mandatory provisions. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also assert that when there is dispute regarding the public document, the said document cannot be proved as per Sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act and that the true copies issued under RTI Act cannot be equated with the certified copies and thus, the trial Court first held that it is not sustainable and later deleted it erroneously and that those documents were created by the respondent-plaintiff herein after the commencement of the trial in collusion with the GHMC, and hence requested the Court to set aside the docket order dated 10.03.2020.
Heard the learned counsel on either side. Perused the documents.
The respondent-plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.69 and 70 of 2019 in the suit seeking to receive the office copy of the requisition given by him to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Circle 18, Central Zone, GHMC, Hyderabad, on 29.12.2018 asking for information in respect of H.No.8-1-284.OU/714/5 and the information given by the Public Information Officer and Deputy Commissioner, Circle 18, GHMC, on 10.01.2019 under the RTI Act.
In the order under challenge the trial Court observed that the documents sought to be filed by the respondent-plaintiff are admissible in evidence and as such they can be marked without any objection. Moreover, the information given is original, but not certified copies, and thus, it comes within the purview of public document. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant opposed the same. The trial Court after considering the arguments on either side held that whenever any objection is raised with regard to admissibility of the document, Court can proceed with the matter tentatively and decide the same at the final stage instead of making the witness to wait in the Court. So that the opposite party would have an opportunity to challenge the evidence on record either in appeal or in revision before the superior Court and if it is excluded from consideration, again the matter will be remanded and to avoid the same, the learned trial Judge perused the documents sought to be filed and held that GHMC is a public office and the information was given on the basis of the Tax Inspector Field Verification Report dated 08.01.2019 and the document sought to be filed by the respondent-plaintiff is not a Xerox copy and also not a certified copy and it is a original one and accordingly allowed the applications.
The allegation of the petitioner herein is that the order under challenge is not acceptable since the word ‘sustainable’ in the docket order is not reflected in the order copy is not tenable.
Now it is for the Court to see whether the documents can be received in evidence.
Plaintiff in the suit stated that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing Open Plot No.714/5 admeasuring 230 square yards equivalent to 192.28 square metres forming part of Sy.Nos.320/1/A, 320/1AA, 320/2, 324 and 326/1 and 2 in Ward No.8, Block No.1 of Shaikpet Village, purchased on 15.04.2011 vide Document No.1071 of 2011. He further submitted that originally the Hyderabad Development Authority has acquired the lands including the plot covered by the suit schedule property vide G.O.Ms.No.232 dated 18.03.1981 and allotted the same in favour of Osmania University Employee’s Cooperative Housing Society Limited vide registered sale deed Document No.311 of 1989 dated 23.02.1089 and lay out is also sanctioned. He would also state that when he intended to perform Bhoomi Pooja the defendant restrained him and as such he gave complaint and also filed the suit for injunction. Whereas the defendant states that he is the owner and possessor of the property bearing Premises No.8-1-68/3/121/122/123, Plot Nos.121 to 123 admeasuring 281 square yards each total land area 562 square yards in Sy.No.317 situated at Jai Hind Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad, and he purchased the same on 06.04.2006. He further submitted that the suit schedule property never exist and plaintiff does not know where his plot is located and as such the plaintiff gave an application to the GHMC authorities on 29.12.2018 and sought for information. GHMC gave reply on 10.01.2019.
In a suit for injunction it is for the plaintiff to prove his possession and as such the documents filed by the plaintiff are relevant to establish his case. The main contention of the defendant is that those documents are not admissible in evidence and are created in collusion with GHMC. The information obtained under RTI Act is admissible evidence and cannot be disputed. The veracity of the documents and its authenticity can be elicited during the cross-examination. The trial Court considering the said aspect rightly allowed the application and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order under challenge.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall also dismissed in the light of this final order.