Smt. K.Jayamma v. Syed Zainulla Abedin
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.
In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff stated that he had sent a legal notice to the petitioner/sole defendant, which was received by her, but she took the plea that she did not. He claimed that he applied to the postal department for fresh proof of service of the notice but was informed that the same was missing in the
file of the postal authorities and that he thereupon applied for and obtained the reply dated 11.02.2016 with regard to the earlier reply dated 22.06.2007. Both these letters from the postal department are placed on record. Under the letter dated 11.02.2016, the counsel for the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff was informed as under: '......................
With reference to the letter cited above, it is to intimate the preservation period for keeping of settled complaints is completed and weeded out. Now no information pertaining to the above complaint is available. However, the copy of the settled reply dated 22-6-2007 is attested and enclosed for your reference as this office has already sent the reply.
.......................'
The copy of the earlier reply dated 22.06.2007 reads as under: '......................
In continuation of our letter regarding the Complaint No. 5000006607, it is to inform you that the complaint of Non Receipt of Ack./Proof of Delivery of Registered Letters with Acknowledgement with Transaction No.4308 on 20/03/2007 of high court - 500066 is settled on 09/05/2007 with the following information that 'THE ARTICLE UNDER REFERENCE WAS DELIVERED TO THE ADDRESSEE ON 22/03/2007'. ......................', This second letter was attested by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hyderabad South East Division, Hyderabad, and sent to the learned counsel. These two letters from the postal department were sought to be placed on record by way of the subject I.A. Surprisingly, the trial Court while referring to these letters stated as under: '..................
So far as the third document is concerned, it is the letter of the postal department, it is not attested copy as contended by the respondent. Therefore, said document also can be received in evidence. .....................'
This observation by the trial Court manifests total nonapplication of mind as the letter dated 11.02.2016 of the postal department plainly demonstrates that the copy of the earlier reply dated 22.06.2007 was attested and returned.
Sri J.Ashvini Kumar, learned counsel, would contend that once the postal department confessed that the original record in relation to the reply dated 22.06.2007 was not available with it, the question of attesting a copy thereof did not arise as such attestation necessarily has to be upon verification of the copy with the original.
This Court finds merit in this contention. There is no question of attesting the copy of the reply dated 22.06.2007 by the postal department in the light of the letter dated 11.02.2016 of the postal department admitting that the original record in relation to the reply dated 22.06.2007 was not available with it. If at all the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff wanted to rely upon just the photocopy of the reply dated 22.06.2007, the procedure for adducing the same in evidence is altogether different and Sri M.P.Chandramouli, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff would concede that no application has been filed as yet in that regard. He would however contend that if the three documents are now allowed to be placed on record under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff would take steps thereafter for marking them as secondary evidence. However, this aspect of the matter has not been spelt out in the order under revision and the application of the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff also makes no mention of the documents being received subject to further proof.
In that view of the matter, the order under revision has to be read down to only granting leave to the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff to place these documents on record under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC as they were not filed along with the plaint. However, as all the three sets of documents are certified copies or photocopies, receipt of the same shall be subject to further proof in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The trial Court shall therefore be mindful of this aspect and proceed in the matter accordingly.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to
costs.
______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 8th JULY, 2016 Svv