M/s Narne Constructions Pvt Ltd v. B Radha Krishna Rao
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-28. M/s Narne Constructions Pvt Ltd v. B Radha Krishna Rao. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
[ 3304 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2070 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 05-03-2025 passed in |. A. No. 116 ot 2025 in OS. No. 1227 ol 2022 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. Between: M/s Narne Constructions Pvt Ltd, represented by its Authorised Representative Babu Rao Kowkuntla, s/o Rama Rao Kowkuntla, aged about 65 years, Occ: Private Employee having office at 1 Gunrock Enclave Secunderabad, Telangana 500 009 ... PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO 7 ANO 1. B Radha Krishna Rao, s/o B Madhava Rao, aged 52 years, Occ: Employee r/o H No 1-9-25, Road No. 2, Vidyut Nagar Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad - 500 060 2. K Soma Narsaiah, s/o late K Rajalah, aged 52 years, Occ: Business r/o H No 1-9-25, Road No.
2, Vidyut Nagar Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad - 500 060 ... RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 3. Smt T Galayya, w/o T Venkatram Reddy, aged about 59 years, Occ: Housewife r/o Gouraram village, Vargal mandal Medak district 4. N Ram Reddy, s/o N Narayana Reddy, aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture r/o Plot No 20, Shobana Colony Balanagar, Hyderabad. 5. Nimma Narsi Reddy, s/o N Ram Reddy, aged 34 years, Occ: Agriculture r/o Thokatta village, Secunderabad 500 009 6. M Venkat Reddy, s/o Shri Ram Reddy, aged 33 years, Occ: Agriculture r/o Thokatta village, Secunderabad 500 009 7. Sri Malini Cooperative Housing Society, represented by its President Smt K laxmi devi, w/o Madhava Reddy, aged 56 years, r/o 38, Park View Enclave Hasmathpet, Secunderabad 500 011 8.
Wincon Housing Private Ltd, represented by its Managing Director K Madhava Reddy, s/o Gal Reddy, aged 59 years, r/o 39, Park View Enclave Hasmathpet Road, Boinapally Secunderabad 500 011 (Respondents / Defendant No's '1 to 6 are rep by their SAGPA holder M/s Narne Constructions Pvt Ltd rep by its Chairman and MD Col Ranga Rao Narne (Retd), s/o rate N v- Naidu, aged about 62 years, r/o g6 Gunrock Enclave Secunderabad 500 OO9, wto is"OltenJa"t-lfio Zl o Yadavalli Venkata Sandeep, s/o yadavalli VenXata SriOnar, aged about 36 years Occ: Physician (MD) R/o H No 3-644/13, Fbt N" 38 Roa'J il13:d; Sri Venkateshwara Nagar Colony Kukatpaf ly, HyierataO SOO 072 ... RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS l. A. NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under section cPC praying that in the cirgumstances stated in . 151 the affidavit fired in support of thepetition t4 liid; ;il. Tay_be preased to grant of all further proceedings stay in os r.
ro rizzlioii o, itu'rire of the Hon,bre senior civir Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpaily, p. nJing J]"p*al of CRp. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Katepalli Sai Sashi yadav Counsel frrr the Respondents No. 1 & 2: Mr. Ramaraju Shyam Sunder Counsel for the Respondent No. 9: Sri p. Rajagopal Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE l HIGH COUI I I o F TELAN 11 l? ilHi". IsrE GANA THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO DATE: 28. 04. 2O26 v 7 Between: M,/s. Narne Constructions pvt. Ltd. , ... Petitioner,/Defendant No. 7 AND B. Radha Krishna Rao and another. ... Responden ts. / pla Smt. T. Galayya in tiffs and 6 others. ... Respondents,/ Defendants ORDER This Civil Revision petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved No. 7 by the decretar order dated 05. 03. 2025 passed in I. A. No. 116 2025 in O. S. No. 1227 0f of 2022on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Reddy Ranga District at Kukatpa[y. 2. Heard Mr.
Katepalli Sai Sashi yadav, lear the pet*ioner/derendant No. 7, and r.. nuru#;J:H:,":::""j counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintif - -Jv. 'r ruEr rts/plaintiffs' Perused the availabre material on record. d 3. The brief facts of th case are as followsr (i) The respondents/plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 1227 of 2022 seeking specific performance of contract. The petitio ne r/defenda nt No. 7 states that it had handed over all original documents to its previous counsel, Sri K. R. Koteswara Rao, for Filing in the suit and was under the bona fide impression that the same were filed before the trial Court. However, upon verification by the present counsel, it was found that the original documents were not available on record. The petitioner contacted the previous counsel and, upon receiving no response, issued a letter dated 25. 01. 2025. Despite acknowledgment, no reply was received.
(ii) The petitioner had obtained an acknowledgment from the previous counsel at the time of handing over the original documents, which has been filed to establish bona fides. Accordingly, I. A. No. 116 of 2025 was filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the documents mentioned therein. The trial Court, vide order dated 05. 03. 2025, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. The Trial Court, vide order dated 05. 03. 2025, dismissed I. A. No. 116 of 2025 observing as follows: "It is appearing that the defendant No. 7 without pressurizing his earlier counsel for return of the documents he has filed the present petition. It is the duty of the counsel to return all the documents to his pa rty whenever the vakalat was withdrawn. Mere the earlier counsel for the defendant No.
7 not returned the original documents is not a ground to lead secondary evidence in respect of the above said documents. Even no foundation laid by the defendant No. 7 about the existence and conditions of the above said documents. In such circumstances the defendant No. 7 is not entitled to lead secondary evidence in respect of the above said documents. Accordingly the point for consideration is a nswered. In the result, the petition is dismissed. " 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No. 7 submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the original documents were entrusted to the previous counsel and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to the negligence or inaction of the said counsel. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in possession of xerox copies of the documents, which have been produced through the learned counsel, and therefore the petitioner is entitled to lead secondary evidence in accordance with law. 6.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs did not oppose allowing of the Civil Revision Petition. 7, Point for Consideration: the The point that arises for consideration/is whether dismissing the application filed trial Court was in iustified Evidence Act seeking under Section 65 of the Indian permission to tead secondary evidence. g. It is well settled that a litigant should not suffer for the lapse or negligenceofthecounsel,particularlywhencustodyofthedocumentsis satisfactorily explained and foundational facts regarding their loss or non- availability are placed before the Court. g. Inthepresentcase,thepetitionerhasassertedthattheoriginal documents were entrusted to the previous counsel and has placed on to that effect. The explanation regarding non-record an acknowledgment It is also submitted that return of the documents appears reasonable.
produced are available and have been xerox copies of the said documents by the learned counsel for the petitioner. is of 10. In such circumstances, this court the view that sufficient foundation has been laid for permitting secondary evidence under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. when photocopies of the documents are available, the same can be received as secondary evidence, subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility. :'' lL. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order dated 05. 03. 2025 passed in I. A. No. 116 of 2025in O. S. No. 1227 of 2022 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 05. 03. 2025 passed in LA. No. 116 of 2025 in O. S. No. 1227 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil ludge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, is set aside. The petitioner/defendant No.
7 is permitted to lead secondary evidence by producing xerci:ccopies of the documents, subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility in accordance with law. Considering that the suit is of the year 2009, the trial Court is directed to complete the process of recording secondary evidence, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed. DEVI SD'- P. C. SULEKHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER To, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally' 1 . The Senior Civil Judge, Advocate IOPUC] 2. o"" Ct t" Mr. Katef,alti Sai-Sashi Yadav Sunder' Advocate IOPUC] o;; aa to Mr. Ramaraju Shyam 3 Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. O"" CC to Sri P. Ralagopal 5 Two CD CoPies KAM/KA HIGH GOURT DATED: 28104t2026 1HE . ) TA ORDER t CRP. No. 2070 of 2025 c li (_) ? ti)i 0 5 t{N {,) 1l I '\* ALLOWING THE CRP @*tr
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.