V. Eshwar Reddy v. Osmania University Employees Colony Welfare Association

[ 3378 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3884 OF 2025 Petition under Afticle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Returned Order dated 15110t2O25 passed in C.A No. 21958t2025 in O.S.No.i545 of 2019, on the file of lV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Between V. Eshwar Reddy, S/o V Hanumanth Reddy, Aged about 49 years, Occ Business, Rlo 8-1 -2Ul0Ul1O2lB, O.U. Colony,-Shalkpet, Hydearbad ...PETITIONER/DEFENDANT AND 9..T.rni? University Eqployees Colony Welfare Association, O.U. Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad, Rep ted by its S-ecretary ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. iS45 of 20.19, on the file of the lV Senior Civil Judg!, City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the present Civit Revision Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. R PAVAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER

rHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REV SION PETITION No.3 A4 ot 2025 ORDER:

Hetrrd Mr. R.Pavan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2.

The instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constituticn of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the docket orrler dated 15.10.2025, whereby the Copy Application i.e. C.A.No.2195B of 2025, seeking for a certified copy of the Vakalatnarna filed in O.S.No.1549 of 2Ol9 on behalf of the plaintiff was returned by the Central Copying Section of the City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

3.

The s;aid application was returned as the document does not fall under Rule 188(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, subniits that his application ought to have been considered to be one under Rule 1BB(1) of the Civil Rules of Practice.

For ready reference, Rule 188(1) and 1BB(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice are reproduced hereunder, viz.,

"788. Persons entitled to apply for copies:-

(1) Any party to a suit or proceeding shatl be entitled to obtain copies of judgments, decrees, or orders made or of any documents exhibited in such suit or proceeding on payment of charges in the manner prescribed under these rules.

(2) Any person who is not a party to a suit or proceeding requiring, copies of judgments, decrees or orders made or of any documents exhibited in such suit or proceedings may apply to the court for grant of .such copies by duly stamped petition supported by an affidavit stating the purpose for which the copy is required.

Provided that, in cases of doubt whether, the copy applied for should be furnished, the application shall be placed before the judge for his decision. If the application is refused by the ludge it shall be returned to the applicant with the order of Judge endorsed on it."

5.

In the instant case, the document of which a certified copy was sought for by the petitioner is admittedly the Vakalatnama executed by the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. Vakalatnama is not reflected to be one of the documents under Rule 188(1) and Rule 1BB(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice which could be considered for grant of certified copy. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 189 of the Civil Rules of

Practice, but the said Rule also does not speak of Vakalatnama to be one of the documents of which certified copy can be issued. 6.

So far as the application for certified copy is concerned, the same ha:; to meet the requirements mentioned in Rule 1BB(1) and Rule 181)(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice. The said Rules reproduct:d in the preceding paragraphs specifically identifies the nature ol documents of which certified copies can be obtained. Vakalatnama is not one which is envisaged as a. document of which certified copy can be given. In view of the same, this Court is of the firm view that the document of which certified copy has been sought for does not fall within the category of documents reflected in Rule 1B8(1) and Rule 188(2). Merely because the Vakalatnama has not be:en reflected under Rule 189 by itself would not lead to an inferenr:e that Vakalatnama is one of the documents of which certified copy can be granted.

7.

In thr: opinion of this Court, rejection of the C.A.No.2195B of 2025 does not any warrant interterence and the instant Civil Revision Pel:ition thus fails and is accordingly rejected.

8.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs S SREENIVASA RE SISTANT //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To,

1. The lV Senior civil'Judge, city civil courts, Hyderabad District.

2. One CC to SRl. R PAVAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies 6.

PK/PSL

HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 't ( o() 2tl2 t:I 2 5 CRP.No.3884 ot 2025 * CIVIL REVISION PEITITION FAILS AND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED.

\ \ v ')/