IMTIAZ AHMED KHAN Vs. SIMPSON AND CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the order dtd. 5/10/2023 in I.A.No.138 of 2021 in R.C.No.49 of 2017 on the file of the Court of I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad (for short, Court below), whereby the application filed by the respondent herein under Sec. 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Sec. 151 of CPC, was allowed.

(2.) In short, the relevant facts are that petitioner herein and respondent No.2 herein have filed the aforesaid RC seeking eviction of respondent No.1 herein from the petition schedule premises. When the matter is at the stage of evidence of petitioner and respondent No.2 herein, respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.138 of 2021 to permit him to lead secondary evidence in respect of order dtd. 3/12/1990 in R.C.No.1558/1986 on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. In the said application, it is averred that R.C.No.1558/1986 was filed by one of the legal heirs of the petitioner herein and the same was dismissed by order dtd. 3/12/1990. The effort of respondent No.1 herein to obtain certified copy of order dtd. 3/12/1990 could not fetch any result because the old material/record was not available in the concerned Court and therefore, the photocopy of order dtd. 3/12/1990 in R.C.No.1588/1986 was sought to be produced. The petitioner and respondent No.2 herein filed counter in the said petition pleading that they have no knowledge of filing R.C.No.1588/1986 and that they were not parties to the said case and sought to dismiss the said application. After hearing both sides, the Court below allowed the said application vide impugned order dtd. 5/10/2023, which is subject matter of challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Sri R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Court below was impressed by the fact that respondent No.1 preferred an application for obtaining certified copy of order dtd. 3/12/1990 in R.C.No.1588/1986, but same could not be filed for non- availability of record. In order to avoid the delay and on account of the fact that no prejudice will be caused to the other side because other side gets an opportunity to cross- examine on the aspect of relevancy of documents and otherwise, the Court below allowed the said application.