IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.4766 of 2010 Between: Ramakondaiah .. Petitioner AND Yerukali Ramulu and others .. Respondents ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order in I.A. No.63 of 2010 and I.A. No.91 of 2010 in O.S. No.12 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narayanpet, dated 12-08- 2010. The plaintiff in the suit for declaration of title by nullifying the registered sale deed dated 11-03-2010, claimed that the plaintiff and his brothers, defendants 1 and 2, partitioned Ac.16.13 guntas in survey No.457 originally belonging to their father and got Ac.5.18 guntas each. On 02-06-1994, the 1st defendant was claimed to have executed a release deed in favour of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant by relinquishing his rights in Ac.5.18 guntas in survey No.457/A and the original document was on a non- judicial bond paper of Rs.30/-. The xerox copy of the said document with original signatures is filed by the plaintiff and he requested for sending the document to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar for impounding by paying deficit stamp duty and penalty. Respondents 1 and 3 to the petition opposed the request claiming that the plaintiff did not take any steps to call for the admittedly existing original document and no secondary evidence could have been taken and the copy cannot be considered as original document for being impounded. They also claimed that the xerox copy being not original cannot be impounded and hence, the petition be dismissed. Defendants 1 and 3 filed a separate petition in I.A. No.91 of 2010 to reject the xerox copy, as the original was never called for and as the xerox copy is inadmissible in evidence. The plaintiff filed a counter claiming that the xerox copies are counterparts of the original relinquishment deed and every counterpart is an original under Section 62 of the Evidence Act. The copy is signed on all its papers by the parties and hence, can be sent for impounding. The trial Court passed the impugned order referring to Jayarama Iyer and others v. Ramanatha Iyer and another[1] and three other precedents relied on by the defendants and opined that the document is not a copy but a counterpart with the original signatures of the parties. The trial Court held that the genuineness or otherwise of the document will be subject to scrutiny during enquiry and the defendants have every right and liberty to challenge the admissibility and proof of the document during such enquiry. As the plaintiff claims the original to be retained with the 1st defendant and as the document is crucial in considering the request for interim relief, the document deserves to be impounded as a counterpart. Hence, the trial Court ordered the interlocutory applications accordingly. The original papers summoned from the trial Court for perusal herein further disclosed that on the document being impounded, the District Registrar, Mahabubnagar collected required stamp duty and penalty treating the xerox copy of the release deed with original signatures as counterpart. The document in question clearly appears to the naked eye to be containing the signatures of the parties to the document in original. The civil revision petition by the 1st defendant questioned the impounding of the document on the same grounds on which the plaintiff’s request was opposed before the trial Court. Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri G. Prabhakar Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff are heard. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is susceptible to any interference in revision ? Point: In Jayarama Iyer and others v. Ramanatha Iyer and another (1 supra), a learned Judge held that where a deed is prepared in two or more identical forms and the documents are signed by all the parties concerned, the copies satisfy all the requirements of a counterpart within the meaning of Section 62 of the Evidence Act. It is true that in Hariom Agrawal v. Prakash Chand Malviya[2], the Apex Court held the Court to have no power to impound the photocopy of the instrument sought to be produced as secondary evidence. The Apex Court made it clear that there is no scope for validating a copy of the instrument by impounding admitting the same as secondary evidence. However, the issue herein is not about admitting a copy as a copy for purposes of impounding, but considering the document relied on by the plaintiff as a counterpart within the meaning of Section 62 of the Evidence Act. If the document can be considered to be a counterpart, the impugned order cannot be considered to suffer from any insurmountable infirmity. Section 62 Explanation 1 of the Evidence Act specifies that where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document and it is further stated that where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or more of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it. As already stated, the document in question herein, though a xerox copy of the contents of the original document, is claimed to have been signed by the parties to the document in original all over again including by the witnesses. After being impounded by the impugned order, the District Registrar, Mahabubnagar has also treated it only as a counterpart while noting the xerox copy of the release deed to be containing the original signatures. There cannot be any doubt that if the document were to be considered a counterpart, the order of impounding the document cannot be considered to be without jurisdiction. As rightly observed by the trial Court in the impugned order, mere impounding of the document will not foreclose consideration of the admissibility and proof of the document during enquiry or trial or even consideration of the nature of the document. It is only for the purpose of impounding that the document is considered a counterpart and the fact that the defendants have yet to file written statements in the suit, is no bar for the trial Court to consider the request, if it is otherwise sustainable. While it is true that the plaintiff did not take any steps to summon the original document said to be in the custody of the 1st defendant, the conflict of interest between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in this regard which led to the suit, cannot be overlooked in considering the issue and whether the plaintiff should suffer any adverse consequences due to his failure to take any steps for summoning the original to be produced before the Court, is a question again open for determination on merits during trial. Therefore, considering no patent illegality or perversity in the prima facie opinion of the trial Court about the document being a counterpart, the civil revision petition should fail. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-09-2011 Svv [1] AIR 1976 MADRAS 147 [2] AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 166