Kothapeta Madhu Raj, v. Fouzia Yasmeen,

Date :21.7.2017 Between :

Kothapeta Madhu Raj S/o late Balaji 60 yrs R/o H NO. 6-7-11, Raganna Darvaja Hanamakonda, Warangal and another Petitioner And Fauzia Yasmeen D/o Shababuddin R/o H No. 2-4-280, Gokul Nagar Hanamakonda, Warangal district Respondents The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:

Petitioners herein are plaintiffs. They filed O.S. No. 641 of 2014 for permanent injunction. In the said suit, they filed I.A. No. 674 of 2016 praying to lead secondary evidence and to mark certified copies of sale deed, urban land ceiling, survey report etc. The trial Court noticed that the basic requirements to invoke Section 65 of the Evidence Act were not complied by the petitioner/plaintiff. The trial Court noted that there was no whisper in the petition as to in whose custody the original documents are available and from which certified copies are obtained.

2.

Bare perusal of the affidavit filed in support of I A No. 674 of 2016, it is seen that it does not disclose the essential details. A vague statement is made regarding filing of the documents in another suit, without furnishing the details of another suit.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that there was deficiency in submitting the true and correct facts and in making appropriate pleadings before the trial Court.

4.

Having regard to the facts on record, I do not see any error in the decision arrived at by the Court below warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and accordingly dismissed. No costs. Having regard to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed. ______________ P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE: 21.07.2017 TVK

Date :21.7.2017