Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 778 (TS)

Bandi Anjaiah v. Bandi Laxmi

2025-06-09

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 04.03.2024 in O.S.No.462 of 2019 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal Malakajgiri District at Khushaiguda. 2. Heard B. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners. No representation on behalf of respondent, despite service of notice. Therefore, matter is disposed basing on the material available on record. 3. The petitioners herein are defendants and respondent herein is plaintiff before the trial Court. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed O.S.No.462 of 2019 against the defendants seeking declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property. On service of summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement and when the matter was coming up for trial, plaintiff filed I.A.No.897 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to receive photographs and C.D. and the said application was resisted by the defendants. 5. The trial Court allowed application vide order dated 17.10.2023, with an observation that plaintiff shall be given an opportunity to prove her case and in case, the photographs are morphed, the same can be elicited at the time of cross examination. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2023, defendants preferred C.R.P.No.296 of 2024, before this Court, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2024. While the said revision was pending, photographs and C.D. were marked through PW.1 as Ex.A7, though, the defendants have taken objection on the ground that photographs are morphed, and thus they are inadmissible in evidence. However, the trial Court vide docket order dated 04.03.2024, overruled the objection raised by the defendant and marked the same as Ex.A7. Aggrieved by the said docket order, the present revision is filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that trial Court erred in marking photographs and C.D. without insisting for application under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and that C.R.P.No.296 of 2024 filed by the defendants assailing the order dated 17.10.2023 in I.A. No. 897 of 2023 was pending for adjudication and therefore, trial Court ought not to have marked photographs and C.D. Learned counsel further contended that photographs are inadmissible in the eye of law and hence, the same ought not to have been marked by the trial Court. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that trial Court ought not to have marked the documents in view of the serious objections raised by the petitioners that photographs are morphed and that in one of the photographs, there are garlands in the necks of the wife and husband and in the other photograph, there are no garlands and more so in the absence of application under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and thus, prayed to allow the revision. 9. It is relevant to note that trial Court allowed I.A.No.897 of 2023 vide Order dated 17.10.2023 and the photographs along with C.D. were received on file. In the said application, similar objection was taken by the defendants that photographs cannot be taken on record. Assailing the order dated 17.10.2023 in I.A.No.897 of 2023, the petitioners preferred C.R.P.No.296 of 2024 and the said revision was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2024 with an observation that procedure of law are designed to facilitate and not to frustrate the ends of justice and further observed that the defendants have an opportunity to cross examine the petitioners, therefore, objections raised by the defendants were overruled. 10. It is relevant to note that earlier, application filed by the respondent to receive the photographs was opposed by the petitioner herein/defendant on the ground that the photographs were morphed. However, the trail Court rejected the objection and allowed the application and the same was challenged by the petitioner vide CRP No.897 of 2023 and this Court dismissed the said CRP vide Order dated 17.10.2024. As rightly observed by the learned Single judge in CRP No.897 of 2023 that the petitioners have every opportunity to cross examine PW.1 with regard to genuinity of photographs and C.Ds and further, the petitioners are also at liberty to challenge and disprove the photographs by producing evidence. 11. In considered opinion of this Court and the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, and this Court does not find any ground or reason to interfere with the impugned order and thus, revision is devoid of any merits. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.