L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE first respondent filed o. S. No. 151 of 1996 in the Court of Senior civil Judge, Mahabubabad against the petitioner (Defendant No. 1) and the second respondent (Defendant No. 2) for the relief of setting aside (obviously cancellation) the decree in O. S. No. 37 of 1982 passed by the Principal Subordinate judge, Warangal or in the alternative to pass a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000. 00 with 25% interest. He has also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from executing a registered sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent herein in respect of the said a schedule property and certain other ancillary reliefs.

( 2 ) THE first respondent filed IA no. 140 of 2000 under Section-65 of the indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to receive the xerox copy of an agreement of sale, dated 30. 11. 1979 as secondary evidence. The petitioner opposed the same. Through its order, dated 26. 6. 2000, the Trial Court allowed the I. A. Hence this revision.

( 3 ) SRI B. V. S. Sivarama Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent on an earlier occasion filed LA. Nos. 10 and 11 of 2000 to adduce the very agreement as secondary evidence and the applications were rejected by the trial Court through order, dated 1. 2. 2000. According to him, the order in the said i. As. operates as res judicata against the present application. He also contends that the xerox copy of an agreement of sale cannot be received in evidence. Learned counsel further contends that even otherwise the first respondent did not comply with the requirements of Section-65 of the Act, to enable the Trial Court to receive the xerox copy of agreement of sale as secondary evidence, and that the order of the Trial Court cannot be sustained.

( 4 ) SRI N. Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the first respondent on the other hand submits that the Trial Court rejected LA. Nos. 10 and 11 of 2000, insofar as they related to the present documents, only on the ground that necessary steps under section-65 of the Act were not taken and the orders cannot be treated as a final pronouncement on the matter. He contends that xerox copy of a document can be received as secondary evidence and that his client has taken steps requiring the person who is in possession of the original of the agreement to produce the document, and only when the possessor of the document did not comply with the request, that the present application has been filed.

( 5 ) BOTH the Counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court as well as the Hon ble Supreme Court in support of their respective contentions.

( 6 ) DURING the course of evidence, the first respondent sought It) rely upon the xerox copy of an agreement of sale deed, dated 30. 11. 1979. According to him, the original of that document is in possession of one Govind Narayana Ladda, and despite his efforts he could not persuade him to produce the original agreement into the Court. He filed LA. No. 11 of 2000 in that suit under Order XIII, Rule 2 of C. P. C. requesting the Trial Court to receive three documents in evidence. Out of the three documents, two were certified copies and the third one was the xerox copy of the agreement of sale deed, dated 30. 11. 1979. In that view of the matter, he filed LA. No. 10 of 2000 to receive the xerox copy of the agreement of sale as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Act. The trial Court disposed of both the applications on 1. 2. 2000 through two separate orders.

( 7 ) IN LA. No. 10 of 2000, it took a view that the first respondent has not taken any steps to procure the original of the agreement of sale and he had only expressed apprehension that the person in custody of the document may not part with it. In that view of the matter, the Trial court dismissed the IA. , obviously because it was pre-mature. LA. No. 11 of 2000, in turn was partly allowed receiving two documents, which are certified copie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document