THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4184 OF 2011 Dated: 17.11.2011 Between: Patti @ Begari Ramaiah … Petitioner And 1. Dr. P. Mamatha and 8 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4184 OF 2011 ORDER : The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.877 of 2003 on the file of the Court of VIII-Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs. The suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendant filed the written statement contesting the suit claim. P.W.1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and allotment orders dated 16.9.1967 and 07.10.967 and Deed of General Power of Attorney dated 14.12.1966 were marked in evidence. The defendant raised an objection as to the admissibility of the said documents alleging that the said documents were concocted and fabricated. It was also contended by the defendant that the documents, which were mere colour photo copies apart from being laminated and sealed, were inadmissible. However the Court below allowed the documents to be marked in evidence as Exs.A-1 to A-3 observing that the genuinity and admissibility of the documents can be decided at the time of judgment after considering evidence on both sides. Thereafter, the defendant filed I.A.No.1026 of 2011 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Order 26 Rule 10A of C.P.C. with a prayer to send Exs.A-1 to A-3 to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Tarnaka, Hyderabad for removal of the laminated and sealed plastic cover and to determine the date and authenticity of the documents. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 24.08.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant. I have heard Sri Bojja Tarakam, the learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Rakesh Sanghi, appearing for the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner while referring to Order 13 Rule 4 of C.P.C. which provides that the number and title of the suit and other particulars shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence and shall be signed or initialled by the Judge, vehemently contended that as the documents in question i.e., Exs.A-1 to A-3 were sealed and laminated in plastic cover, no endorsement was made as provided under Rule 4 of Order 13 of C.P.C. and therefore they were not validly admitted in evidence. It is also contended that it is mandatory for the plaintiff to produce original documents and unless and until the documents are examined and compared with the original they cannot be marked in evidence as provided under Order 7 Rule 17 of C.P.C. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LIMITED. V. SURENDERA OIL & DAL MILLS[1]. I have also heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.S. Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 and Sri S. Shiva Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents 8 and 9. At the outset, it is to be noticed that while marking the documents in question the objection raised by the defendant as to the admissibility was considered by the Court below and the documents were marked in evidence subject to objection. Since the defendant did not choose to challenge the said order, it has become final. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to re-agitate the issue of the admissibility of the same documents at this stage. So far as sending the said documents for the opinion of the Expert is concerned, as rightly held by the Court below it is a suit for injunction simplicitor and therefore the burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish their possession over the property as on the date of filing of the suit. The Court below has also taken into consideration the fact that the defendant had admitted possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and separate suit being O.S.No.821 of 2010 filed by him for declaration of title is pending in the Special Court for SC/ST-cum- Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District. In view of the pendency of such comprehensive suit, the Court below was justified in holding that it was not necessary to go into the authenticity of the said documents by sending to an Expert. The said conclusion of the Court below, in my considered opinion, does not suffer from any patent error of fact or law warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LIMITED’S case (1 supra), relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel, the Court was dealing with marking of xerox copies of the Certificates of Registration of trade mark as exhibits in spite of the objection raised by the defendant. The ratio laid down in the said decision has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. It is also relevant to note that the Court below has given cogent reasons while declining to send the documents in question for opinion on the Expert. Such discretion exercised by the Court on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be held to be perverse or arbitrary and therefore the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 17.11.2011 gbs [1] (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 4223